The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: pecunia on February 19, 2019, 08:46:11 AM
-
Bernie Sanders announced he was running for president today. I like some of what Bernie says. What does he want to do?
- Change health care so that it is no longer fully privatized to give the government a leading role like in other countries
- Give people much better access to education
- Have a living minimum wage
- Fix crumbling infrastructure like bad roads and bridges ready to collapse
- Tax the rich and probably feed the poor. He doesn't like billionaires and big powerful corporations
- I think he wants less military expenditures as well and eliminate some of these foreign wars
So, what would a Bernie president mean for mustachianism. I think the health care thing would be quite good myself. Taxes would go up but premiums may be almost nonexistent. Of course even if he won, he wouldn't get all of this stuff.
-
Thread title is apt. He will be 79 years old at the time of the 2020 election. He needs to step down.
-
Old Bernie the independent, who only joins the Democratic party when it's convenient for him.
-
Health care comprises such an overwhelming percentage of our budget that taxes are basically a rounding error. Anyone who supports universal healthcare will get my vote. Is Bernie the best candidate to do it? Not in my estimation, but if the primary voters think that he is, then I'll vote for him in the general election.
-
Ok, now that he's in, might as well jump the shark and *really* go for it. Pick AOC for VP Bern. I dare ya!
-
Anyone who supports universal healthcare will get my vote.
Andrew Yang. He was on the Joe Rogan podcast recently. I don't like Joe Rogan, but these podcasts are long, so this one and the Elon Musk one were pretty cool.
-
Pick AOC for VP Bern. I dare ya!
She's not old enough. You need to be 35 to be President or Vice President, she's 29 currently. On the other hand, his age means that his VP pick is a bit more important than usual.
As much as I'll probably regret the next few years of notifications from posting in this thread, given the interest in outsiders for the last election (both Sanders and Trump represented "not business as usual", Clinton represented "Absolutely more of the same"), I think he stands a decent chance this goround - assuming he survives the primaries. Literally as well as politically.
He also will likely get a very soft touch from the DNC after last election's proven shenanigans, which will help him a lot.
-
We had too few people running in 2016, and now there are so many that I fear they will cannibalize each other, or it will be too late to coalesce around the nominee if the primaries drag on.
-
As much as I'll probably regret the next few years of notifications from posting in this thread....
You can use "Notify" instead of "Show new replies" to get around that problem. :)
-
This is why we will get 8 years of Trump.
-
Pick AOC for VP Bern. I dare ya!
She's not old enough. You need to be 35 to be President or Vice President, she's 29 currently. On the other hand, his age means that his VP pick is a bit more important than usual.
D'oh, shoulda looked up her age. And fricken A what the heck am I doing with my life? Feels weird that a person who wasn't even in high school yet when I graduated is part of running the country. The kids are flexing their muscles, there's hope yet for this country!
-
This is why we will get 8 years of Trump.
agreed!
-
This is why we will get 8 years of Trump.
agreed!
Yup. Guaranteed there are some ties to Russia-backed organizations like the Sparts in his background. Nobody has dumped oppo on him yet.
-
No more Hillary and no more Bernie. No more DJT either. Today would be too long to get rid of Trump and Pence in my book.
Let's please have someone a little younger with perhaps a good, wise older VP to help them along. More centrist or moderate.
-
I want Joe Biden to run both because he has excellent experience and because the stories from The Onion would be outstanding. *cranks up some Whitesnake*
-
Why was his campaign manager involved with Paul Manafort?
-
This is why we will get 8 years of Trump.
agreed!
Yup. Guaranteed there are some ties to Russia-backed organizations like the Sparts in his background. Nobody has dumped oppo on him yet.
(https://ptpimg.me/e3502y.jpg)
~
-
Doesn't look like there are too many fans of old Bernie here. Somebody must like him. I read he got 6 million in donations soon after he declared he was running.
-
I like him fine. I voted for him in the 2016 primary. He's served a useful role in bringing universal healthcare into mainstream conversations. However, I don't think he's the right person for the presidency and I won't be voting for him in the 2020 primary.
-
Of course even if he won, he wouldn't get all of this stuff.
I don't think he'd get any of it. For as long as he's been in office, he has remarkably little in terms of legislation that's passed to his name and when asked how he'd get this super liberal stuff through a Republican Senate, which is gonna be a thing for AWHILE, the response was something like 'groundswell of grassroots activism'. Erm. K.
-
Doesn't look like there are too many fans of old Bernie here. Somebody must like him. I read he got 6 million in donations soon after he declared he was running.
He has a lot of support from the sort of people who don't realize that Benny is the hero of the musical "Rent".
-
Bernie Sanders announced he was running for president today. I like some of what Bernie says. What does he want to do?
- Change health care so that it is no longer fully privatized to give the government a leading role like in other countries
- Give people much better access to education
- Have a living minimum wage
- Fix crumbling infrastructure like bad roads and bridges ready to collapse
- Tax the rich and probably feed the poor. He doesn't like billionaires and big powerful corporations
- I think he wants less military expenditures as well and eliminate some of these foreign wars
So, what would a Bernie president mean for mustachianism. I think the health care thing would be quite good myself. Taxes would go up but premiums may be almost nonexistent. Of course even if he won, he wouldn't get all of this stuff.
A couple of misrepresentations here.
1. He does NOT want to have the government take control of health care. He wants universal health insurance. Look at countries like England and Canada. Healthcare is private. The funding of healthcare is a government entitlement.
2. Regarding taxing the rich. Do you disagree with virtually every scholar that there is an ever increasing wealth gap in this country? This has been going on since the 70s and is worse in America than in any other country; countries that also have billionaires too!
-
Old Bernie the independent, who only joins the Democratic party when it's convenient for him.
We gonna act like the system isn’t rigged by the two parties to prevent third party candidates from competing? We’re you not alive in 2016 as the Democratic Party lubed up Bern’s anus and f*cked him in that spot?
-
Ok, now that he's in, might as well jump the shark and *really* go for it. Pick AOC for VP Bern. I dare ya!
He couldn’t do that if he wanted to. An VP candidate must also be qualified to be president. As she is 29 years of age, she would not qualify. It’s the same reason a former president who already served two terms cannot be a VP, like Obama or Bush. You probably should’ve paid attention in high school government class.
-
Anyone who supports universal healthcare will get my vote.
Andrew Yang. He was on the Joe Rogan podcast recently. I don't like Joe Rogan, but these podcasts are long, so this one and the Elon Musk one were pretty cool.
Word.
-
Old Bernie the independent, who only joins the Democratic party when it's convenient for him.
We gonna act like the system isn’t rigged by the two parties to prevent third party candidates from competing? We’re you not alive in 2016 as the Democratic Party lubed up Bern’s anus and f*cked him in that spot?
Old Bernie the independent, who only joins the Democratic party when it’s convenient for him.
-
Old Bernie the independent, who only joins the Democratic party when it's convenient for him.
We gonna act like the system isn’t rigged by the two parties to prevent third party candidates from competing? We’re you not alive in 2016 as the Democratic Party lubed up Bern’s anus and f*cked him in that spot?
Old Bernie the independent, who only joins the Democratic party when it’s convenient for him.
I’m pretty sure I addressed that. Take a look at the history of third party candidates. Years ago the Dems and Republican bastards teamed up to make it difficult for independent candidates to raise money and be competitive. He is using the system to get his message out.
-
Old Bernie the independent, who only joins the Democratic party when it's convenient for him.
We gonna act like the system isn’t rigged by the two parties to prevent third party candidates from competing? We’re you not alive in 2016 as the Democratic Party lubed up Bern’s anus and f*cked him in that spot?
Old Bernie the independent, who only joins the Democratic party when it’s convenient for him.
I’m pretty sure I addressed that. Take a look at the history of third party candidates. Years ago the Dems and Republican bastards teamed up to make it difficult for independent candidates to raise money and be competitive. He is using the system to get his message out.
Maybe if he was an actual Democrat, the party would have been more interested in backing his candidacy.
-
Old Bernie the independent, who only joins the Democratic party when it's convenient for him.
We gonna act like the system isn’t rigged by the two parties to prevent third party candidates from competing? We’re you not alive in 2016 as the Democratic Party lubed up Bern’s anus and f*cked him in that spot?
Old Bernie the independent, who only joins the Democratic party when it’s convenient for him.
I’m pretty sure I addressed that. Take a look at the history of third party candidates. Years ago the Dems and Republican bastards teamed up to make it difficult for independent candidates to raise money and be competitive. He is using the system to get his message out.
Maybe if he was an actual Democrat, the party would have been more interested in backing his candidacy.
The republican bastards had non problem backing Trump, who was a registered democrat until 2009.
-
Old Bernie the independent, who only joins the Democratic party when it's convenient for him.
We gonna act like the system isn’t rigged by the two parties to prevent third party candidates from competing? We’re you not alive in 2016 as the Democratic Party lubed up Bern’s anus and f*cked him in that spot?
Old Bernie the independent, who only joins the Democratic party when it’s convenient for him.
I’m pretty sure I addressed that. Take a look at the history of third party candidates. Years ago the Dems and Republican bastards teamed up to make it difficult for independent candidates to raise money and be competitive. He is using the system to get his message out.
Maybe if he was an actual Democrat, the party would have been more interested in backing his candidacy.
The republican bastards had non problem backing Trump, who was a registered democrat until 2009.
Well, they did... until they realized they didn’t have a choice.
-
Old Bernie the independent, who only joins the Democratic party when it's convenient for him.
We gonna act like the system isn’t rigged by the two parties to prevent third party candidates from competing? We’re you not alive in 2016 as the Democratic Party lubed up Bern’s anus and f*cked him in that spot?
Old Bernie the independent, who only joins the Democratic party when it’s convenient for him.
I’m pretty sure I addressed that. Take a look at the history of third party candidates. Years ago the Dems and Republican bastards teamed up to make it difficult for independent candidates to raise money and be competitive. He is using the system to get his message out.
Maybe if he was an actual Democrat, the party would have been more interested in backing his candidacy.
The republican bastards had non problem backing Trump, who was a registered democrat until 2009.
Well, they did... until they realized they didn’t have a choice.
There were 17 candidates in the 2016 Republican primary. I’d say they had a choice. They did. And as is the Republican way, they like to make the wrong one.
-
Old Bernie the independent, who only joins the Democratic party when it's convenient for him.
We gonna act like the system isn’t rigged by the two parties to prevent third party candidates from competing? We’re you not alive in 2016 as the Democratic Party lubed up Bern’s anus and f*cked him in that spot?
Old Bernie the independent, who only joins the Democratic party when it’s convenient for him.
I’m pretty sure I addressed that. Take a look at the history of third party candidates. Years ago the Dems and Republican bastards teamed up to make it difficult for independent candidates to raise money and be competitive. He is using the system to get his message out.
Maybe if he was an actual Democrat, the party would have been more interested in backing his candidacy.
The republican bastards had non problem backing Trump, who was a registered democrat until 2009.
Well, they did... until they realized they didn’t have a choice.
There were 17 candidates in the 2016 Republican primary. I’d say they had a choice. They did. And as is the Republican way, they like to make the wrong one.
The party didn’t want him. But the people forced their hand.
And as much as Trump is disgusting in every way, he did win. So whether he was the wrong choice? I guess you’d have to ask the RNC about that.
-
Old Bernie the independent, who only joins the Democratic party when it's convenient for him.
We gonna act like the system isn’t rigged by the two parties to prevent third party candidates from competing? We’re you not alive in 2016 as the Democratic Party lubed up Bern’s anus and f*cked him in that spot?
Old Bernie the independent, who only joins the Democratic party when it’s convenient for him.
I’m pretty sure I addressed that. Take a look at the history of third party candidates. Years ago the Dems and Republican bastards teamed up to make it difficult for independent candidates to raise money and be competitive. He is using the system to get his message out.
Maybe if he was an actual Democrat, the party would have been more interested in backing his candidacy.
The republican bastards had non problem backing Trump, who was a registered democrat until 2009.
Well, they did... until they realized they didn’t have a choice.
There were 17 candidates in the 2016 Republican primary. I’d say they had a choice. They did. And as is the Republican way, they like to make the wrong one.
The party didn’t want him. But the people forced their hand.
And as much as Trump is disgusting in every way, he did win. So whether he was the wrong choice? I guess you’d have to ask the RNC about that.
Just totally destroyed your argument that the party didn’t have a choice and you respond with a lie about him winning! LOL. He wakes up everyday with the realization that the majority of Americans voted for Hillary. You’re fake news man. #fakeassnews
-
He wakes up everyday with the realization that the majority of Americans voted for Hillary. You’re fake news man. #fakeassnews
He wakes up in the White House, with the title President of the United States of America. I think he can live with that.
There were 17 candidates in the 2016 Republican primary.
Democrats are looking pretty close to that this year... so we'll see if they manage the same sort of insanity.
-
Capitalism has treated me too well for Sanders to be my first choice in the primary. I'd still take him over Trump in a heartbeat.
I hate that I have to say this, but the fact that he's an old white dude should help his electability in the general election. We saw in 2016 that a lot of men simply aren't willing to vote for a woman over a man, probably more than enough to have made the difference in the election. If the candidates are on an even playing field demographics-wise, maybe the policy differences can come to the forefront.
-
Old Bernie the independent, who only joins the Democratic party when it's convenient for him.
We gonna act like the system isn’t rigged by the two parties to prevent third party candidates from competing? We’re you not alive in 2016 as the Democratic Party lubed up Bern’s anus and f*cked him in that spot?
Old Bernie the independent, who only joins the Democratic party when it’s convenient for him.
I’m pretty sure I addressed that. Take a look at the history of third party candidates. Years ago the Dems and Republican bastards teamed up to make it difficult for independent candidates to raise money and be competitive. He is using the system to get his message out.
Maybe if he was an actual Democrat, the party would have been more interested in backing his candidacy.
The republican bastards had non problem backing Trump, who was a registered democrat until 2009.
Well, they did... until they realized they didn’t have a choice.
There were 17 candidates in the 2016 Republican primary. I’d say they had a choice. They did. And as is the Republican way, they like to make the wrong one.
The party didn’t want him. But the people forced their hand.
And as much as Trump is disgusting in every way, he did win. So whether he was the wrong choice? I guess you’d have to ask the RNC about that.
Just totally destroyed your argument that the party didn’t have a choice and you respond with a lie about him winning! LOL. He wakes up everyday with the realization that the majority of Americans voted for Hillary. You’re fake news man. #fakeassnews
You... are kind of a troll.
The party didn’t want him. They weren’t really able to stop him from being the nominee, though.
And that “he didn’t win” thing? You really sound like you think you owned me. But, to disappoint you, I had heard of the electoral college before this conversation. And I am aware Hillary got more votes. That doesn’t mean she won, now, does it?
And not to defend Trump, but he did at least join the Republican Party prior to launching his campaign. Bernie never did become a Democrat, but still expected them to give him money, infrastructure, and support. And now, four years later, he still hasn’t joined the party and he wants their money, infrastructure and support again.
Regardless of what I think of his policy ideas, I have really started to sour on him as a person. Bernie seems to care about Bernie.
-
He wakes up everyday with the realization that the majority of Americans voted for Hillary. You’re fake news man. #fakeassnews
He wakes up in the White House, with the title President of the United States of America. I think he can live with that.
There were 17 candidates in the 2016 Republican primary.
Democrats are looking pretty close to that this year... so we'll see if they manage the same sort of insanity.
Fake news
-
Capitalism has treated me too well for Sanders to be my first choice in the primary. I'd still take him over Trump in a heartbeat.
I hate that I have to say this, but the fact that he's an old white dude should help his electability in the general election. We saw in 2016 that a lot of men simply aren't willing to vote for a woman over a man, probably more than enough to have made the difference in the election. If the candidates are on an even playing field demographics-wise, maybe the policy differences can come to the forefront.
Bernie is a capitalist. Know your candidates positions before you misrepresent them please.
-
Old Bernie the independent, who only joins the Democratic party when it's convenient for him.
We gonna act like the system isn’t rigged by the two parties to prevent third party candidates from competing? We’re you not alive in 2016 as the Democratic Party lubed up Bern’s anus and f*cked him in that spot?
Old Bernie the independent, who only joins the Democratic party when it’s convenient for him.
I’m pretty sure I addressed that. Take a look at the history of third party candidates. Years ago the Dems and Republican bastards teamed up to make it difficult for independent candidates to raise money and be competitive. He is using the system to get his message out.
Maybe if he was an actual Democrat, the party would have been more interested in backing his candidacy.
The republican bastards had non problem backing Trump, who was a registered democrat until 2009.
Well, they did... until they realized they didn’t have a choice.
There were 17 candidates in the 2016 Republican primary. I’d say they had a choice. They did. And as is the Republican way, they like to make the wrong one.
The party didn’t want him. But the people forced their hand.
And as much as Trump is disgusting in every way, he did win. So whether he was the wrong choice? I guess you’d have to ask the RNC about that.
Just totally destroyed your argument that the party didn’t have a choice and you respond with a lie about him winning! LOL. He wakes up everyday with the realization that the majority of Americans voted for Hillary. You’re fake news man. #fakeassnews
You... are kind of a troll.
The party didn’t want him. They weren’t really able to stop him from being the nominee, though.
And that “he didn’t win” thing? You really sound like you think you owned me. But, to disappoint you, I had heard of the electoral college before this conversation. And I am aware Hillary got more votes. That doesn’t mean she won, now, does it?
And not to defend Trump, but he did at least join the Republican Party prior to launching his campaign. Bernie never did become a Democrat, but still expected them to give him money, infrastructure, and support. And now, four years later, he still hasn’t joined the party and he wants their money, infrastructure and support again.
Regardless of what I think of his policy ideas, I have really started to sour on him as a person. Bernie seems to care about Bernie.
Troll? I prove you wrong and you resort to name-calling? Real mature.
The party couldn’t stop him from being the nominee? You mean like the party couldn’t stop Bernie from being the Democratic nominee? Oh, wait....
Call me some more names, please. Just shows you have no argument.
-
Old Bernie the independent, who only joins the Democratic party when it's convenient for him.
We gonna act like the system isn’t rigged by the two parties to prevent third party candidates from competing? We’re you not alive in 2016 as the Democratic Party lubed up Bern’s anus and f*cked him in that spot?
Old Bernie the independent, who only joins the Democratic party when it’s convenient for him.
I’m pretty sure I addressed that. Take a look at the history of third party candidates. Years ago the Dems and Republican bastards teamed up to make it difficult for independent candidates to raise money and be competitive. He is using the system to get his message out.
Maybe if he was an actual Democrat, the party would have been more interested in backing his candidacy.
The republican bastards had non problem backing Trump, who was a registered democrat until 2009.
Well, they did... until they realized they didn’t have a choice.
There were 17 candidates in the 2016 Republican primary. I’d say they had a choice. They did. And as is the Republican way, they like to make the wrong one.
The party didn’t want him. But the people forced their hand.
And as much as Trump is disgusting in every way, he did win. So whether he was the wrong choice? I guess you’d have to ask the RNC about that.
Just totally destroyed your argument that the party didn’t have a choice and you respond with a lie about him winning! LOL. He wakes up everyday with the realization that the majority of Americans voted for Hillary. You’re fake news man. #fakeassnews
You... are kind of a troll.
The party didn’t want him. They weren’t really able to stop him from being the nominee, though.
And that “he didn’t win” thing? You really sound like you think you owned me. But, to disappoint you, I had heard of the electoral college before this conversation. And I am aware Hillary got more votes. That doesn’t mean she won, now, does it?
And not to defend Trump, but he did at least join the Republican Party prior to launching his campaign. Bernie never did become a Democrat, but still expected them to give him money, infrastructure, and support. And now, four years later, he still hasn’t joined the party and he wants their money, infrastructure and support again.
Regardless of what I think of his policy ideas, I have really started to sour on him as a person. Bernie seems to care about Bernie.
Troll? I prove you wrong and you resort to name-calling? Real mature.
The party couldn’t stop him from being the nominee? You mean like the party couldn’t stop Bernie from being the Democratic nominee? Oh, wait....
Call me some more names, please. Just shows you have no argument.
You know they’re different parties, right? With different structures?
-
Old Bernie the independent, who only joins the Democratic party when it's convenient for him.
We gonna act like the system isn’t rigged by the two parties to prevent third party candidates from competing? We’re you not alive in 2016 as the Democratic Party lubed up Bern’s anus and f*cked him in that spot?
Old Bernie the independent, who only joins the Democratic party when it’s convenient for him.
I’m pretty sure I addressed that. Take a look at the history of third party candidates. Years ago the Dems and Republican bastards teamed up to make it difficult for independent candidates to raise money and be competitive. He is using the system to get his message out.
Maybe if he was an actual Democrat, the party would have been more interested in backing his candidacy.
The republican bastards had non problem backing Trump, who was a registered democrat until 2009.
Well, they did... until they realized they didn’t have a choice.
There were 17 candidates in the 2016 Republican primary. I’d say they had a choice. They did. And as is the Republican way, they like to make the wrong one.
The party didn’t want him. But the people forced their hand.
And as much as Trump is disgusting in every way, he did win. So whether he was the wrong choice? I guess you’d have to ask the RNC about that.
Just totally destroyed your argument that the party didn’t have a choice and you respond with a lie about him winning! LOL. He wakes up everyday with the realization that the majority of Americans voted for Hillary. You’re fake news man. #fakeassnews
You... are kind of a troll.
The party didn’t want him. They weren’t really able to stop him from being the nominee, though.
And that “he didn’t win” thing? You really sound like you think you owned me. But, to disappoint you, I had heard of the electoral college before this conversation. And I am aware Hillary got more votes. That doesn’t mean she won, now, does it?
And not to defend Trump, but he did at least join the Republican Party prior to launching his campaign. Bernie never did become a Democrat, but still expected them to give him money, infrastructure, and support. And now, four years later, he still hasn’t joined the party and he wants their money, infrastructure and support again.
Regardless of what I think of his policy ideas, I have really started to sour on him as a person. Bernie seems to care about Bernie.
Troll? I prove you wrong and you resort to name-calling? Real mature.
The party couldn’t stop him from being the nominee? You mean like the party couldn’t stop Bernie from being the Democratic nominee? Oh, wait....
Call me some more names, please. Just shows you have no argument.
You know they’re different parties, right? With different structures?
Straw man. Both parties have the power to sabotage any candidate’s campaign. I just proved that beyond all conceivable doubts.
-
Old Bernie the independent, who only joins the Democratic party when it's convenient for him.
We gonna act like the system isn’t rigged by the two parties to prevent third party candidates from competing? We’re you not alive in 2016 as the Democratic Party lubed up Bern’s anus and f*cked him in that spot?
Old Bernie the independent, who only joins the Democratic party when it’s convenient for him.
I’m pretty sure I addressed that. Take a look at the history of third party candidates. Years ago the Dems and Republican bastards teamed up to make it difficult for independent candidates to raise money and be competitive. He is using the system to get his message out.
Maybe if he was an actual Democrat, the party would have been more interested in backing his candidacy.
The republican bastards had non problem backing Trump, who was a registered democrat until 2009.
Well, they did... until they realized they didn’t have a choice.
There were 17 candidates in the 2016 Republican primary. I’d say they had a choice. They did. And as is the Republican way, they like to make the wrong one.
The party didn’t want him. But the people forced their hand.
And as much as Trump is disgusting in every way, he did win. So whether he was the wrong choice? I guess you’d have to ask the RNC about that.
Just totally destroyed your argument that the party didn’t have a choice and you respond with a lie about him winning! LOL. He wakes up everyday with the realization that the majority of Americans voted for Hillary. You’re fake news man. #fakeassnews
You... are kind of a troll.
The party didn’t want him. They weren’t really able to stop him from being the nominee, though.
And that “he didn’t win” thing? You really sound like you think you owned me. But, to disappoint you, I had heard of the electoral college before this conversation. And I am aware Hillary got more votes. That doesn’t mean she won, now, does it?
And not to defend Trump, but he did at least join the Republican Party prior to launching his campaign. Bernie never did become a Democrat, but still expected them to give him money, infrastructure, and support. And now, four years later, he still hasn’t joined the party and he wants their money, infrastructure and support again.
Regardless of what I think of his policy ideas, I have really started to sour on him as a person. Bernie seems to care about Bernie.
Troll? I prove you wrong and you resort to name-calling? Real mature.
The party couldn’t stop him from being the nominee? You mean like the party couldn’t stop Bernie from being the Democratic nominee? Oh, wait....
Call me some more names, please. Just shows you have no argument.
You know they’re different parties, right? With different structures?
Straw man. Both parties have the power to sabotage any candidate’s campaign. I just proved that beyond all conceivable doubts.
You remind me of that saying about never playing chess with a pigeon.
But hey, go crazy. You are the masterfullest arguer who ever argued.
Enjoy.
-
Old Bernie the independent, who only joins the Democratic party when it's convenient for him.
We gonna act like the system isn’t rigged by the two parties to prevent third party candidates from competing? We’re you not alive in 2016 as the Democratic Party lubed up Bern’s anus and f*cked him in that spot?
Old Bernie the independent, who only joins the Democratic party when it’s convenient for him.
I’m pretty sure I addressed that. Take a look at the history of third party candidates. Years ago the Dems and Republican bastards teamed up to make it difficult for independent candidates to raise money and be competitive. He is using the system to get his message out.
Maybe if he was an actual Democrat, the party would have been more interested in backing his candidacy.
The republican bastards had non problem backing Trump, who was a registered democrat until 2009.
Well, they did... until they realized they didn’t have a choice.
There were 17 candidates in the 2016 Republican primary. I’d say they had a choice. They did. And as is the Republican way, they like to make the wrong one.
The party didn’t want him. But the people forced their hand.
And as much as Trump is disgusting in every way, he did win. So whether he was the wrong choice? I guess you’d have to ask the RNC about that.
Just totally destroyed your argument that the party didn’t have a choice and you respond with a lie about him winning! LOL. He wakes up everyday with the realization that the majority of Americans voted for Hillary. You’re fake news man. #fakeassnews
You... are kind of a troll.
The party didn’t want him. They weren’t really able to stop him from being the nominee, though.
And that “he didn’t win” thing? You really sound like you think you owned me. But, to disappoint you, I had heard of the electoral college before this conversation. And I am aware Hillary got more votes. That doesn’t mean she won, now, does it?
And not to defend Trump, but he did at least join the Republican Party prior to launching his campaign. Bernie never did become a Democrat, but still expected them to give him money, infrastructure, and support. And now, four years later, he still hasn’t joined the party and he wants their money, infrastructure and support again.
Regardless of what I think of his policy ideas, I have really started to sour on him as a person. Bernie seems to care about Bernie.
Troll? I prove you wrong and you resort to name-calling? Real mature.
The party couldn’t stop him from being the nominee? You mean like the party couldn’t stop Bernie from being the Democratic nominee? Oh, wait....
Call me some more names, please. Just shows you have no argument.
You know they’re different parties, right? With different structures?
Straw man. Both parties have the power to sabotage any candidate’s campaign. I just proved that beyond all conceivable doubts.
You remind me of that saying about never playing chess with a pigeon.
But hey, go crazy. You are the masterfullest arguer who ever argued.
Enjoy.
No. Not at all. But you have no rebuttal to my points.
-
Please, nest the quotes a bit deeper...
-
Please, nest the quotes a bit deeper...
I think they add an artistic flare to my unbeatable debate skills.
-
Ok, now that he's in, might as well jump the shark and *really* go for it. Pick AOC for VP Bern. I dare ya!
He couldn’t do that if he wanted to. An VP candidate must also be qualified to be president. As she is 29 years of age, she would not qualify. It’s the same reason a former president who already served two terms cannot be a VP, like Obama or Bush. You probably should’ve paid attention in high school government class.
Yeah thanks for the history lesson "teach." Maybe you can go brush up on reading comprehension, I assumed she was old enough to be able to serve as president.
-
Ok, now that he's in, might as well jump the shark and *really* go for it. Pick AOC for VP Bern. I dare ya!
If there is ever a day when AOC is running for VP or POTUS I think I will become a political activist and spend my time trying to convince people not to vote for her. God help us all.
-
Capitalism has treated me too well for Sanders to be my first choice in the primary. I'd still take him over Trump in a heartbeat.
I hate that I have to say this, but the fact that he's an old white dude should help his electability in the general election. We saw in 2016 that a lot of men simply aren't willing to vote for a woman over a man, probably more than enough to have made the difference in the election. If the candidates are on an even playing field demographics-wise, maybe the policy differences can come to the forefront.
Bernie is a capitalist. Know your candidates positions before you misrepresent them please.
I know that Sanders calls himself a socialist. I have read his platform, at least in the previous election. Compared to the status quo, the policy changes he has proposed are generally intended to move the US more in a socialist direction. Is he Karl Marx incarnate? No. Is he Ayn Rand incarnate? Definitely not.
-
Please, nest the quotes a bit deeper...
Thank you for saying what everyone was thinking.
-
I'm going to pass on Bernie. The policies he advocates are worthy of discussion, but I don't care for his personality. Elizabeth Warren would be a better choice. I also like Kamala Harris a lot too.
-
As much as I like Bernie, Democrats want a more moderate party.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/245462/democrats-favor-moderate-party-gop-conservative.aspx
Whether the DNC realizes this in time is the question. Or are they re-running 2016?
-
As much as I like Bernie, Democrats want a more moderate party.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/245462/democrats-favor-moderate-party-gop-conservative.aspx
Whether the DNC realizes this in time is the question. Or are they re-running 2016?
As for your last statement, I don't really get it. The DNC last time chose the moderate over the further left guy. So, how would they be re-running 2016?
-
I guess a million people have signed up to help old Bernie run for president:
I was forwarded this that Bernie sent out:
"Well, I am happy to share that yesterday Deborah from Brownstown Charter Township in Michigan was the millionth person to add her name and join our fight.
We did it."
It looks like he is off to a good start.
-
As much as I like Bernie, Democrats want a more moderate party.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/245462/democrats-favor-moderate-party-gop-conservative.aspx
Whether the DNC realizes this in time is the question. Or are they re-running 2016?
As for your last statement, I don't really get it. The DNC last time chose the moderate over the further left guy. So, how would they be re-running 2016?
Hillary didn't lose the election because she was too moderate. She lost the election because she was Hillary.
-
Hillary didn't lose the election because she was too moderate. She lost the election because she was Hillary.
I think there is a lot of truth to that. The woman did not seem to exude a lot of warmth. I got the feeling she was talking down to some of us. Her "deplorables" comment did not help her at all.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/election-us-2016-37329812/clinton-half-of-trump-supporters-basket-of-deplorables (https://www.bbc.com/news/av/election-us-2016-37329812/clinton-half-of-trump-supporters-basket-of-deplorables)
The electoral college thing also had a lot to do with it.
So what is a moderate? Quick blurb - "The existence of the ideal moderate is disputed because of a lack of a moderate political ideology. Voters who describe themselves as centrist often mean that they are moderate in their political views, advocating neither extreme left-wing politics nor extreme right-wing politics."
Moderate implies keeping the status quo.
I think a lot of people are ready for positive change.
-
I haven't looked into the data but I wonder how folks in the LGBTQ community lean re: the Dems announcing thus far.
Does any other candidate have Bernie's bona fides when it comes to defending and embracing the LGBTQ community? Was anyone else publicly embracing them in the mid 1990s? To me, that speaks a lot to his character.
-
As much as I like Bernie, Democrats want a more moderate party.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/245462/democrats-favor-moderate-party-gop-conservative.aspx
Whether the DNC realizes this in time is the question. Or are they re-running 2016?
As for your last statement, I don't really get it. The DNC last time chose the moderate over the further left guy. So, how would they be re-running 2016?
Hillary didn't lose the election because she was too moderate. She lost the election because she was Hillary.
This is not my point, either way. And apparently, it isn't Gentmach's.
Gentmach said that the Democrats need a moderate in 2020. And he said 1) he hopes they realize that, 2) "Or are they re-running 2016?"
My point was, they did run the moderate in 2016. So, statements 1 and 2 seem to be contradictory.
That was why I was asking for clarification.
-
I haven't looked into the data but I wonder how folks in the LGBTQ community lean re: the Dems announcing thus far.
Does any other candidate have Bernie's bona fides when it comes to defending and embracing the LGBTQ community? Was anyone else publicly embracing them in the mid 1990s? To me, that speaks a lot to his character.
Most of the Dem candidates who have announced thus far weren't office holders in the 1990s. I think Bernie's record on this, though admirable, is unusually early because of his age.
-
As much as I like Bernie, Democrats want a more moderate party.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/245462/democrats-favor-moderate-party-gop-conservative.aspx
Whether the DNC realizes this in time is the question. Or are they re-running 2016?
As for your last statement, I don't really get it. The DNC last time chose the moderate over the further left guy. So, how would they be re-running 2016?
Hillary didn't lose the election because she was too moderate. She lost the election because she was Hillary.
This is not my point, either way. And apparently, it isn't Gentmach's.
Gentmach said that the Democrats need a moderate in 2020. And he said 1) he hopes they realize that, 2) "Or are they re-running 2016?"
My point was, they did run the moderate in 2016. So, statements 1 and 2 seem to be contradictory.
That was why I was asking for clarification.
I heard there is a saying that "political campaigns are planned around the last election."
So the polling indicates that democrats want a moderate. But they lost the last election because they ran a moderate. So the rhetorical question is "will the DNC be responsive enough to change or are they going with someone that would have worked in 2016?"
-
I think Hillary would have won if she was a white man. They just need to run a white man who is somewhere in the middle and doesn't have horrible morals since the Democrats still care about that.
I would love someone who is competent over someone who is exciting at this point. Someone with some level of past political experience and knowledge. Maybe asking too much?
eta: someone of sound mental health
Other things on my must list,
a) solve the public health crisis that is our status quo by moving to universal health care. It is long overdue and the current situation is a drag on our economy as well as our public health (overall mortality and life expectancy, prenatal care, you name it).
And most of all, a president who acknowledges climate change and makes it one of the main policy priorities. If you are going to declare an emergency, THIS is the emergency.
-
Most of the Dem candidates who have announced thus far weren't office holders in the 1990s. I think Bernie's record on this, though admirable, is unusually early because of his age.
I don't think age is typically with being more progressive :) Bernie, imperfect as he is, I think does deserve some serious credit for his clear thinking with respect to social issues. Even Obama in 2008 did not support gay marriage. Bernie is not your typical politician.
-
Well I'm still surprised that gay marriage is now legal. I thought it would take another 10 years.
-
As much as I like Bernie, Democrats want a more moderate party.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/245462/democrats-favor-moderate-party-gop-conservative.aspx
Whether the DNC realizes this in time is the question. Or are they re-running 2016?
As for your last statement, I don't really get it. The DNC last time chose the moderate over the further left guy. So, how would they be re-running 2016?
Hillary didn't lose the election because she was too moderate. She lost the election because she was Hillary.
This is not my point, either way. And apparently, it isn't Gentmach's.
Gentmach said that the Democrats need a moderate in 2020. And he said 1) he hopes they realize that, 2) "Or are they re-running 2016?"
My point was, they did run the moderate in 2016. So, statements 1 and 2 seem to be contradictory.
That was why I was asking for clarification.
I heard there is a saying that "political campaigns are planned around the last election."
So the polling indicates that democrats want a moderate. But they lost the last election because they ran a moderate. So the rhetorical question is "will the DNC be responsive enough to change or are they going with someone that would have worked in 2016?"
Hmm. Okay, I didn't get that from your original question.
-
Most of the Dem candidates who have announced thus far weren't office holders in the 1990s. I think Bernie's record on this, though admirable, is unusually early because of his age.
I don't think age is typically with being more progressive :) Bernie, imperfect as he is, I think does deserve some serious credit for his clear thinking with respect to social issues. Even Obama in 2008 did not support gay marriage. Bernie is not your typical politician.
No, no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that saying "Bernie was for gay rights in 1990s" is awesome, but that it's also partially misleading to compare that particular data point to others, because he's one of the only people who were public figures whose opinion on that subject would have been on record.
It is, indeed, awesome that he was for LGBTQ rights in the 1990s, though. As we know, that was the era of "Don't ask, don't tell," which was seen as a risky thing for a president (Clinton) to say. Doesn't seem very progressive these days, for sure.
-
As much as I like Bernie, Democrats want a more moderate party.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/245462/democrats-favor-moderate-party-gop-conservative.aspx
Whether the DNC realizes this in time is the question. Or are they re-running 2016?
As for your last statement, I don't really get it. The DNC last time chose the moderate over the further left guy. So, how would they be re-running 2016?
Hillary didn't lose the election because she was too moderate. She lost the election because she was Hillary.
This is not my point, either way. And apparently, it isn't Gentmach's.
Gentmach said that the Democrats need a moderate in 2020. And he said 1) he hopes they realize that, 2) "Or are they re-running 2016?"
My point was, they did run the moderate in 2016. So, statements 1 and 2 seem to be contradictory.
That was why I was asking for clarification.
I heard there is a saying that "political campaigns are planned around the last election."
So the polling indicates that democrats want a moderate. But they lost the last election because they ran a moderate. So the rhetorical question is "will the DNC be responsive enough to change or are they going with someone that would have worked in 2016?"
Hmm. Okay, I didn't get that from your original question.
I was on break which led to the brevity.
-
I think Hillary would have won if she was a white man. They just need to run a white man who is somewhere in the middle and doesn't have horrible morals since the Democrats still care about that.
I would love someone who is competent over someone who is exciting at this point. Someone with some level of past political experience and knowledge. Maybe asking too much?
eta: someone of sound mental health
Other things on my must list,
a) solve the public health crisis that is our status quo by moving to universal health care. It is long overdue and the current situation is a drag on our economy as well as our public health (overall mortality and life expectancy, prenatal care, you name it).
And most of all, a president who acknowledges climate change and makes it one of the main policy priorities. If you are going to declare an emergency, THIS is the emergency.
If Elizabeth Warren had a sex change, would she work for you?
-
I think Hillary would have won if she was a white man. They just need to run a white man who is somewhere in the middle and doesn't have horrible morals since the Democrats still care about that.
I would love someone who is competent over someone who is exciting at this point. Someone with some level of past political experience and knowledge. Maybe asking too much?
eta: someone of sound mental health
Other things on my must list,
a) solve the public health crisis that is our status quo by moving to universal health care. It is long overdue and the current situation is a drag on our economy as well as our public health (overall mortality and life expectancy, prenatal care, you name it).
And most of all, a president who acknowledges climate change and makes it one of the main policy priorities. If you are going to declare an emergency, THIS is the emergency.
If Elizabeth Warren had a sex change, would she work for you?
The way I read it, they were just saying that a victory was more likely for the Dems if they ran a moderate, non-objectionable white guy. No one (I don't think) is saying that it SHOULD be like that, in a perfect world. I think many Dems/Independents are just trying to figure out the most realistic path to victory. Like it or not, Trump's name-calling ways have racist, ageist, and sexist connotations. A "cool white guy" like Beto might be the most resilient to those attacks.
Personally, I think every aspect of this is up for analysis. We need progress, not necessarily perfection.
-
I think Hillary would have won if she was a white man. They just need to run a white man who is somewhere in the middle and doesn't have horrible morals since the Democrats still care about that.
I would love someone who is competent over someone who is exciting at this point. Someone with some level of past political experience and knowledge. Maybe asking too much?
eta: someone of sound mental health
Other things on my must list,
a) solve the public health crisis that is our status quo by moving to universal health care. It is long overdue and the current situation is a drag on our economy as well as our public health (overall mortality and life expectancy, prenatal care, you name it).
And most of all, a president who acknowledges climate change and makes it one of the main policy priorities. If you are going to declare an emergency, THIS is the emergency.
If Elizabeth Warren had a sex change, would she work for you?
The way I read it, they were just saying that a victory was more likely for the Dems if they ran a moderate, non-objectionable white guy. No one (I don't think) is saying that it SHOULD be like that, in a perfect world. I think many Dems/Independents are just trying to figure out the most realistic path to victory. Like it or not, Trump's name-calling ways have racist, ageist, and sexist connotations. A "cool white guy" like Beto might be the most resilient to those attacks.
Personally, I think every aspect of this is up for analysis. We need progress, not necessarily perfection.
Yup. I'm sure partygypsy is happy with Warren the way she is.
I think (barring huge skeletons in closet issue) that a ticket of e.g., O'Rourke/Harris or Biden/Warren etc would blast Trump out of the water. I'm less confident of other other types of 'identity' combos, though I admit in the preliminary going I'm definitely inclined to back Harris or Warren. However, if my primary vote ends up mattering (doubtful), I will weigh likelihood of election over ALL other criteria.
But then, I'm not a purist. I wish our primary system wasn't set up to overvalue the votes of the fringe-positions of both parties.
-
We probably need to turn this back to Bernie to keep from getting too off topic.
Bernie has raised like $10M in one week and he has a ton of monthly contributors set up.
Unless Biden throws his hat in the ring (which I think gets more unlikely as the weeks and months pass), Bernie seems to be the front-runner, and he's going to have more cash than anyone. I wonder when the other Dems will start attacking him. I mean, if they want to win, they can't afford to let him get a gigantic $ advantage.
-
Ok, now that he's in, might as well jump the shark and *really* go for it. Pick AOC for VP Bern. I dare ya!
He couldn’t do that if he wanted to. An VP candidate must also be qualified to be president. As she is 29 years of age, she would not qualify. It’s the same reason a former president who already served two terms cannot be a VP, like Obama or Bush. You probably should’ve paid attention in high school government class.
The 12th amendment states that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States" while the 22nd states "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once." While the 12th speaks to eligibility to become president, the 22nd references "elected." A plain reading of the constitution seems to indicate that a Bernie/Obama ticket in 2020 would be fine since Obama wouldn't be elected for a third term as president, although I'm sure there would be a visit or two to the Supreme Court along the way.
-
Reading this thread brought up a thought I hadn't considered before - perhaps Bernie is running not with the expectation to win, but with the expectation to help drive policy for the future. Its not that dissimilar to him entering the field in 2016 to at least provide an option and some debate for the D party.
Think of all the disaffected people from 2016 who need to be engaged to make 2020 work. Now imagine Bernie not running. There are 17 people in the field. A bunch are going to rise to the top and I'm pretty sure that everyone knows that recycled candidates do terribly. Let the man drive policy and I bet he will gracefully bow out and back a worthy nominee.
-
As much as I like Bernie, Democrats want a more moderate party.
Huh?
I don't see a huge establishment want for someone more left than Sanders.
-
Reading this thread brought up a thought I hadn't considered before - perhaps Bernie is running not with the expectation to win, but with the expectation to help drive policy for the future. Its not that dissimilar to him entering the field in 2016 to at least provide an option and some debate for the D party.
Think of all the disaffected people from 2016 who need to be engaged to make 2020 work. Now imagine Bernie not running. There are 17 people in the field. A bunch are going to rise to the top and I'm pretty sure that everyone knows that recycled candidates do terribly. Let the man drive policy and I bet he will gracefully bow out and back a worthy nominee.
You might be right, but really he has already won in driving the Democratic party to adopt pretty much all of his platform from 2016.
People ridicule him for not passing much specific legislation (true), but which is more powerful, getting a few bills passed, or shaping much of the platform of one of the two major political parties?
-
- SNIP -
You might be right, but really he has already won in driving the Democratic party to adopt pretty much all of his platform from 2016.
People ridicule him for not passing much specific legislation (true), but which is more powerful, getting a few bills passed, or shaping much of the platform of one of the two major political parties?
The work of Bernie in getting some of these ideas adopted seems like getting a huge rock rolling. At first there is a jerk, the rock rolls back a bit, then it is pushed forward to move by fits and starts. Once the rock actually begins rolling it has a lot of inertia and there is no stopping it.
Just hope you are not in front of this massive rock.
-
I like Elizabeth Warren just fine. She is a smart competent person and I align with much of her political platform. Just I'm being pragmatic, and if you use a white male you take away a lot of the "weapons" Trump uses against his opponents (painting them as the other, or as the enemy). If the Democrats put up a woman for president on the ticket, I fear Trump will use a lot of underbelly sexism against her, and he seems to use those kind of ugly urges prejudices really well to power up his base.
If Bernie ran his two main detractions are that he is socialist (I know he isn't but that's what his opponents will say), and that he is old. for me personally one of my bigger reservations is he a purist, or a pragmatist? Would he be OK working both within the Democratic party and across the aisle to get legislation passed? I don't know. It would not be great to have the "ball" (i.e. presidency) but then have an ineffective president.
-
I like Elizabeth Warren just fine. She is a smart competent person and I align with much of her political platform.... If Bernie ran his two main detractions are that he is socialist (I know he isn't but that's what his opponents will say), and that he is old.
I would add that Bernie is just eight years older than Warren, and the Democratic party does not have a good history of getting older non-incumbents elected. Going back 100 years, the oldest non-incumbent was Jimmy Carter who was 52 (at inauguration) followed by FDR at 51, Obama at 47, Clinton at 46, and Kennedy at 43.
-
Unless Biden throws his hat in the ring (which I think gets more unlikely as the weeks and months pass), Bernie seems to be the front-runner, and he's going to have more cash than anyone. I wonder when the other Dems will start attacking him. I mean, if they want to win, they can't afford to let him get a gigantic $ advantage.
The Democratic Party primary season is shaping up like 2016's Republican setup - tons of people, no obvious front runners (perhaps some party-chosen front runners, but I think after getting caught meddling in 2016, the DNC will behave this time, possibly excessively so), and a long, drawn out season of chaos, with unexpected results.
Given Bernie's popularity last time, and the country-wide preference for "outsiders" over "Washington Elite," I think he's got a solid chance of just running away with the primaries.
Reading this thread brought up a thought I hadn't considered before - perhaps Bernie is running not with the expectation to win, but with the expectation to help drive policy for the future. Its not that dissimilar to him entering the field in 2016 to at least provide an option and some debate for the D party.
Or... he's playing to win, which is an awful lot more consistent with his behavior and comments in 2016.
Think of all the disaffected people from 2016 who need to be engaged to make 2020 work. Now imagine Bernie not running. There are 17 people in the field. A bunch are going to rise to the top and I'm pretty sure that everyone knows that recycled candidates do terribly. Let the man drive policy and I bet he will gracefully bow out and back a worthy nominee.
The Republicans ran a clown car primary in 2016, and we have Trump out of the deal. Though, to be fair, Trump was remarkably good at setting his sights on a target and tweeting them to death (until they dropped out) - it was properly impressive to watch. We'll see if anyone in the Democrats wants to play that dirty or not.
But I think Bernie has a very real chance of not only getting the nomination, but winning. Now, the feasibility of his policies? Up in the air. But that sure didn't stop Trump.
-
It's great that Bernie's running. I hope it makes Democratic candidates up their game. But winning the nomination? Bernie is effing ancient and a "well known socialist." Trump will have an absolute field day with this, I can already see it-"The Crazy old Communist," or worst.
-
Reading this thread brought up a thought I hadn't considered before - perhaps Bernie is running not with the expectation to win, but with the expectation to help drive policy for the future. Its not that dissimilar to him entering the field in 2016 to at least provide an option and some debate for the D party.
Think of all the disaffected people from 2016 who need to be engaged to make 2020 work. Now imagine Bernie not running. There are 17 people in the field. A bunch are going to rise to the top and I'm pretty sure that everyone knows that recycled candidates do terribly. Let the man drive policy and I bet he will gracefully bow out and back a worthy nominee.
You might be right, but really he has already won in driving the Democratic party to adopt pretty much all of his platform from 2016.
People ridicule him for not passing much specific legislation (true), but which is more powerful, getting a few bills passed, or shaping much of the platform of one of the two major political parties?
The thing I'm interested in watching is whether a candidate parrots Bernie's left platform to win DNC nomination and then pivots to usual centrist points to try to "win over" Republicans. It's foolish strategy but one that gets used often. Independent voters are not people who like part of Reb. platform and part of Dem. platform. They're people that don't like or trust either party. Run a trustworthy candidate that has ideas that benefit the average person and they'll win.
-
Are the Republicans really going to run Mr. Trump again? He often does not seem to have the honorable characteristics one would expect in a president. At this point in time, no Republicans seem to have made much noise in challenging Mr. trump. I have noted in conversations with the people I meet that their is deteriorating support for the man. This army of potential Democratic candidates are gearing up to face Trump and the opponent could be someone else.
-
Are the Republicans really going to run Mr. Trump again? He often does not seem to have the honorable characteristics one would expect in a president. At this point in time, no Republicans seem to have made much noise in challenging Mr. trump. I have noted in conversations with the people I meet that their is deteriorating support for the man. This army of potential Democratic candidates are gearing up to face Trump and the opponent could be someone else.
Trump has almost 90% approval among registered Republicans, and they are the people who vote in the primaries that determine the presidential candidate.
-
Are the Republicans really going to run Mr. Trump again? He often does not seem to have the honorable characteristics one would expect in a president. At this point in time, no Republicans seem to have made much noise in challenging Mr. trump. I have noted in conversations with the people I meet that their is deteriorating support for the man. This army of potential Democratic candidates are gearing up to face Trump and the opponent could be someone else.
Trump has almost 90% approval among registered Republicans, and they are the people who vote in the primaries that determine the presidential candidate.
Republicans love Trump, it would make no sense to run someone else. Racism, sexism, homophobia, nepotism, flagrant abuse of power, collusion with Russia . . . these are things that Republicans either enjoy, or at least are not bothered by enough to take any kind of action.
Yes, it's popular for Republicans to publicly mouth the occasional mild concern over his actions and statements - but then they go on overwhelmingly supporting Trump at every turn. Actions speak louder than words, and the Republican party has spoken loudly by their actions.
-
Given Bernie's popularity last time, and the country-wide preference for "outsiders" over "Washington Elite," I think he's got a solid chance of just running away with the primaries.
Reading this thread brought up a thought I hadn't considered before - perhaps Bernie is running not with the expectation to win, but with the expectation to help drive policy for the future. Its not that dissimilar to him entering the field in 2016 to at least provide an option and some debate for the D party.
Or... he's playing to win, which is an awful lot more consistent with his behavior and comments in 2016.
Think of all the disaffected people from 2016 who need to be engaged to make 2020 work. Now imagine Bernie not running. There are 17 people in the field. A bunch are going to rise to the top and I'm pretty sure that everyone knows that recycled candidates do terribly. Let the man drive policy and I bet he will gracefully bow out and back a worthy nominee.
The Republicans ran a clown car primary in 2016, and we have Trump out of the deal. Though, to be fair, Trump was remarkably good at setting his sights on a target and tweeting them to death (until they dropped out) - it was properly impressive to watch. We'll see if anyone in the Democrats wants to play that dirty or not.
But I think Bernie has a very real chance of not only getting the nomination, but winning. Now, the feasibility of his policies? Up in the air. But that sure didn't stop Trump.
I was a Bernie bro (Bernie sis??) in 2016 and I'm not now, mostly due to his age as a factor in his inelectability. He will turn 79 yrs old 2 months before the 2020 election. He would be 79 yrs and 4 months by inauguration day and 83 yrs + 4 months by the completion of his first term. From a practicality standpoint, him having a major health event or dying in office would be catastrophic to the country. There is a mixed track record of VPs being elevated to the presidency actually being reelected and I don't think that its worth risking an additional 4 years control of the White house when there are other viable candidates. I think the discontent and the amount of verbal diarrhea that Trump would spew about the ticket (flaws of the Presidential candidate + flaws of the VP candidate who could presumably be elevated to the presidency) would just be a giant distraction. I don't want a distraction. I want someone to verbally or literally eviscerate Trump on stage. I think Harris is the only person who can speak in a way that she will A) not tolerate his shit and B) leave his head spinning and him either out of control or unable to comprehend properly to respond
If Bernie was the only person willing to take on Trump, I'd vote for him. If he wins the nomination, I will vote for him. In my head though its like seeing an accident ahead on the road, and not being able to avoid it. I felt this way in 2016 and don't want a repeat of "the wrong candidate" causing more discontent within the party.
-
Are the Republicans really going to run Mr. Trump again? He often does not seem to have the honorable characteristics one would expect in a president. At this point in time, no Republicans seem to have made much noise in challenging Mr. trump. I have noted in conversations with the people I meet that their is deteriorating support for the man. This army of potential Democratic candidates are gearing up to face Trump and the opponent could be someone else.
Not only is Trump definitely going to win the Republican primary again - without question - but the Republican Party is currently trying to change their primary rules (https://www.npr.org/2019/01/04/681987077/rnc-members-want-to-block-a-primary-challenge-to-trump-but-the-rules-may-stop-th) in various states to make it more difficult for anyone to run against him.
-
Are the Republicans really going to run Mr. Trump again? He often does not seem to have the honorable characteristics one would expect in a president. At this point in time, no Republicans seem to have made much noise in challenging Mr. trump. I have noted in conversations with the people I meet that their is deteriorating support for the man. This army of potential Democratic candidates are gearing up to face Trump and the opponent could be someone else.
Not only is Trump definitely going to win the Republican primary again - without question - but the Republican Party is currently trying to change their primary rules (https://www.npr.org/2019/01/04/681987077/rnc-members-want-to-block-a-primary-challenge-to-trump-but-the-rules-may-stop-th) in various states to make it more difficult for anyone to run against him.
And... somewhat relevant:
"I did the same thing you are doing now for ten years. I protected Mr. Trump for ten years."
Michael Cohen, this morning, to the GOP congresspeople
-
Are the Republicans really going to run Mr. Trump again? He often does not seem to have the honorable characteristics one would expect in a president. At this point in time, no Republicans seem to have made much noise in challenging Mr. trump. I have noted in conversations with the people I meet that their is deteriorating support for the man. This army of potential Democratic candidates are gearing up to face Trump and the opponent could be someone else.
Not only is Trump definitely going to win the Republican primary again - without question - but the Republican Party is currently trying to change their primary rules (https://www.npr.org/2019/01/04/681987077/rnc-members-want-to-block-a-primary-challenge-to-trump-but-the-rules-may-stop-th) in various states to make it more difficult for anyone to run against him.
I predict as it becomes closer to the primaries, he chooses not to run for a 2nd term.
-
Are the Republicans really going to run Mr. Trump again? He often does not seem to have the honorable characteristics one would expect in a president. At this point in time, no Republicans seem to have made much noise in challenging Mr. trump. I have noted in conversations with the people I meet that their is deteriorating support for the man. This army of potential Democratic candidates are gearing up to face Trump and the opponent could be someone else.
Not only is Trump definitely going to win the Republican primary again - without question - but the Republican Party is currently trying to change their primary rules (https://www.npr.org/2019/01/04/681987077/rnc-members-want-to-block-a-primary-challenge-to-trump-but-the-rules-may-stop-th) in various states to make it more difficult for anyone to run against him.
I predict as it becomes closer to the primaries, he chooses not to run for a 2nd term.
Can I ask what you're basing that on? Because I honestly can't imagine it.
-
^Probably out of the same hope that people had when they figured he didn't *really* want to be president... And then he won the primaries. And then the presidency.
-
I like Bernie. But he is on the old side. It will be interesting to see if the lefty democrats will have a feeding frenzy that will gut their support and leave the democrats with another sub par Presidential choice that Trump will somehow, against all reason, defeat.
I rather hope not.
-
Are the Republicans really going to run Mr. Trump again? He often does not seem to have the honorable characteristics one would expect in a president. At this point in time, no Republicans seem to have made much noise in challenging Mr. trump. I have noted in conversations with the people I meet that their is deteriorating support for the man. This army of potential Democratic candidates are gearing up to face Trump and the opponent could be someone else.
Not only is Trump definitely going to win the Republican primary again - without question - but the Republican Party is currently trying to change their primary rules (https://www.npr.org/2019/01/04/681987077/rnc-members-want-to-block-a-primary-challenge-to-trump-but-the-rules-may-stop-th) in various states to make it more difficult for anyone to run against him.
I predict as it becomes closer to the primaries, he chooses not to run for a 2nd term.
Can I ask what you're basing that on? Because I honestly can't imagine it.
My read on it is that he really isn't enjoying it. I think he will be satisfied with going down in history as being a POTUS and having had his time to be one of the most powerful persons in the world. I think he will end up just walking away feeling he did what he needed to do... no need for 4 more years of something he really doesn't enjoy.
I predict Pence will run and get the nomination in 2020.
-
Are the Republicans really going to run Mr. Trump again? He often does not seem to have the honorable characteristics one would expect in a president. At this point in time, no Republicans seem to have made much noise in challenging Mr. trump. I have noted in conversations with the people I meet that their is deteriorating support for the man. This army of potential Democratic candidates are gearing up to face Trump and the opponent could be someone else.
Not only is Trump definitely going to win the Republican primary again - without question - but the Republican Party is currently trying to change their primary rules (https://www.npr.org/2019/01/04/681987077/rnc-members-want-to-block-a-primary-challenge-to-trump-but-the-rules-may-stop-th) in various states to make it more difficult for anyone to run against him.
I predict as it becomes closer to the primaries, he chooses not to run for a 2nd term.
Can I ask what you're basing that on? Because I honestly can't imagine it.
My read on it is that he really isn't enjoying it. I think he will be satisfied with going down in history as being a POTUS and having had his time to be one of the most powerful persons in the world. I think he will end up just walking away feeling he did what he needed to do... no need for 4 more years of something he really doesn't enjoy.
I predict Pence will run and get the nomination in 2020.
I definitely agree he’s not enjoying it. But his ego will never allow him to back down. He will run in 2020.
And I’ll go further and echo what Michael Cohen said at the end of his testimony today. Michael Cohen, who has been an intimate of Trump’s for ten years:
If Trump loses in 2020, there will never be a peaceful transfer of power.
-
Are the Republicans really going to run Mr. Trump again? He often does not seem to have the honorable characteristics one would expect in a president. At this point in time, no Republicans seem to have made much noise in challenging Mr. trump. I have noted in conversations with the people I meet that their is deteriorating support for the man. This army of potential Democratic candidates are gearing up to face Trump and the opponent could be someone else.
Not only is Trump definitely going to win the Republican primary again - without question - but the Republican Party is currently trying to change their primary rules (https://www.npr.org/2019/01/04/681987077/rnc-members-want-to-block-a-primary-challenge-to-trump-but-the-rules-may-stop-th) in various states to make it more difficult for anyone to run against him.
I predict as it becomes closer to the primaries, he chooses not to run for a 2nd term.
Can I ask what you're basing that on? Because I honestly can't imagine it.
My read on it is that he really isn't enjoying it. I think he will be satisfied with going down in history as being a POTUS and having had his time to be one of the most powerful persons in the world. I think he will end up just walking away feeling he did what he needed to do... no need for 4 more years of something he really doesn't enjoy.
I predict Pence will run and get the nomination in 2020.
I definitely agree he’s not enjoying it. But his ego will never allow him to back down. He will run in 2020.
And I’ll go further and echo what Michael Cohen said at the end of his testimony today. Michael Cohen, who has been an intimate of Trump’s for ten years:
If Trump loses in 2020, there will never be a peaceful transfer of power.
To belabor the point, my hunch is that he also thinks the presidency is protecting him from legal repercussions and he'd want to keep that as long as he could.
-
If Trump loses in 2020, there will never be a peaceful transfer of power.
Oh FFS. I've been hearing that since I was old enough to pay attention to politics.
Bush Senior... actually, I don't think anyone was too worried about him.
Clinton was going to use the UN Black Helicopters or something to not leave office.
Bush Junior definitely wasn't going to leave office peacefully.
Obama was going to be a three term President from various whatevers.
It's silly every time it's brought up.
-
If Trump loses in 2020, there will never be a peaceful transfer of power.
Oh FFS. I've been hearing that since I was old enough to pay attention to politics.
Bush Senior... actually, I don't think anyone was too worried about him.
Clinton was going to use the UN Black Helicopters or something to not leave office.
Bush Junior definitely wasn't going to leave office peacefully.
Obama was going to be a three term President from various whatevers.
It's silly every time it's brought up.
Seriously?
I have literally never heard it about anyone else.
Quite honestly, I question your statement. Can you, or anyone else, provide any evidence of this?
Edit: Well, I do take that back. About Obama, sure, because the rigt wing media fell off the batshit crazy train about him. But they also thought he was a secret Muslim Kenyan terrorist, so... not too sure we need to pay a lot of attention to that.
Let’s not forget that Trump:
Has said if Hillary won, it would be because the election was rigged.
Insinuated at the time that his base would rise up violently if he did not win in 2018.
Has openly floated the idea of making an exception to term limits so he could serve more than two terms.
And again, one of his close associates and attorneys just stated his belief about this today, under oath.
-
If Trump loses in 2020, there will never be a peaceful transfer of power.
Oh FFS. I've been hearing that since I was old enough to pay attention to politics.
Bush Senior... actually, I don't think anyone was too worried about him.
Clinton was going to use the UN Black Helicopters or something to not leave office.
Bush Junior definitely wasn't going to leave office peacefully.
Obama was going to be a three term President from various whatevers.
It's silly every time it's brought up.
Seriously?
I have literally never heard it about anyone else.
Quite honestly, I question your statement. Can you, or anyone else, provide any evidence of this?
Let’s not forget that Trump:
Has said if Hillary won, it would be because the election was rigged.
Insinuated at the time that his base would rise up violently if he did not win in 2018.
Has openly floated the idea of making an exception to term limits so he could serve more than two terms.
Both of you should just bookmark this thread and see who's right if Trump loses 2020.
-
If Trump loses in 2020, there will never be a peaceful transfer of power.
Oh FFS. I've been hearing that since I was old enough to pay attention to politics.
Bush Senior... actually, I don't think anyone was too worried about him.
Clinton was going to use the UN Black Helicopters or something to not leave office.
Bush Junior definitely wasn't going to leave office peacefully.
Obama was going to be a three term President from various whatevers.
It's silly every time it's brought up.
Seriously?
I have literally never heard it about anyone else.
Quite honestly, I question your statement. Can you, or anyone else, provide any evidence of this?
Let’s not forget that Trump:
Has said if Hillary won, it would be because the election was rigged.
Insinuated at the time that his base would rise up violently if he did not win in 2018.
Has openly floated the idea of making an exception to term limits so he could serve more than two terms.
Both of you should just bookmark this thread and see who's right if Trump loses 2020.
Yup.
I’ve been thinking about this for a while now. Honestly, I used to be 50/50 about it. 50 that his ego would not be able to deal with the idea of relinquishing power, and 50 that he would privately say, “thank god,” walk away, and spending the next years lobbing flaming turds at the next president from the cheap seats of Twitter to assuage his wounded pride.
But the more criminal stuff that seems to come up about him, the more I feel like he might really see being President For Life as the best way to avoid prosecution. So now, I give it about 70/30 that if he is still president in 2020 and loses.... he will not go quietly.
-
I wonder if Bernie will make the same mistakes again this time and campaign to black voters by telling them that his opponent wants to cut their welfare. I literally cringed when he said things like that during the last election cycle. Talk about racism. As if black voters are all on welfare, when the reality is that they want the same things as white voters for their communities: good jobs, good schools, quality affordable housing, quality affordable healthcare, the feeling that their children are safe when they play in the park, etc. I guess that's just what happens when you live your entire life in a suburban white bubble like Vermont.
-
- SNIP -
I guess that's just what happens when you live your entire life in a suburban white bubble like Vermont.
I thought it was rural like Maine. I guess it is close enough to those Eastern big cities that it could be considered a suburb.
-
If Trump loses in 2020, there will never be a peaceful transfer of power.
Oh FFS. I've been hearing that since I was old enough to pay attention to politics.
Bush Senior... actually, I don't think anyone was too worried about him.
Clinton was going to use the UN Black Helicopters or something to not leave office.
Bush Junior definitely wasn't going to leave office peacefully.
Obama was going to be a three term President from various whatevers.
It's silly every time it's brought up.
Seriously?
I have literally never heard it about anyone else.
I had dozens of people on Facebook posting about how Obama was going to declare a national emergency to avoid turning over power to Trump in the days leading up to 2017. You must hang out in some pretty blue circles if you never saw people sharing every inane conspiracy theory imaginable about Obama. I'd say Trump is probably more likely than any president we've had to refuse a peaceful transfer of power, but I'd peg the odds at wayyyy less than 1%.
-
If Trump loses in 2020, there will never be a peaceful transfer of power.
Oh FFS. I've been hearing that since I was old enough to pay attention to politics.
Bush Senior... actually, I don't think anyone was too worried about him.
Clinton was going to use the UN Black Helicopters or something to not leave office.
Bush Junior definitely wasn't going to leave office peacefully.
Obama was going to be a three term President from various whatevers.
It's silly every time it's brought up.
Seriously?
I have literally never heard it about anyone else.
I had dozens of people on Facebook posting about how Obama was going to declare a national emergency to avoid turning over power to Trump in the days leading up to 2017. You must hang out in some pretty blue circles if you never saw people sharing every inane conspiracy theory imaginable about Obama. I'd say Trump is probably more likely than any president we've had to refuse a peaceful transfer of power, but I'd peg the odds at wayyyy less than 1%.
I did edit my post above once I remembered the wacko conspiracy theory stuff.
Hope you’re right about Trump.
-
I'd say Trump is probably more likely than any president we've had to refuse a peaceful transfer of power, but I'd peg the odds at wayyyy less than 1%.
Wayyy less than 1%, huh? So like 0.2%? If the is indeed how you feel about the probability here, does that mean you would give me 500 to 1 odds on a bet?
So, hypothetically, if we bet $1,000 on 500:1 odds.... then if Trump doesn't peacefully transfer power, then I would get $500,000 and if he does peacefully transfer power, you would get $1,000...
$1,000... I mean, that's easy money, right?
Is there a single Trump supporter who would take that bet? I doubt it.
Define peacefully?
If you mean that he's going to gracefully shake the hand of the next president, make some noises about how despite the campaign rhetoric he wishes him the best, etc, etc... no, I wouldn't take the bet.
If peaceful means "twitter shit storm, conspiracy theories, fake news accusations, and a bunch of noise and crazy as we know the man to be capable of from November to January... BUT ultimately leaving the office on the correct time without wrecking the place up too badly, I might take that bet.
Since I plan to vote for anyone but trump in the primaries, and will probably vote for a democrat in the general provided they aren't too far left, am I eligible to take the bet?
-
I'd say Trump is probably more likely than any president we've had to refuse a peaceful transfer of power, but I'd peg the odds at wayyyy less than 1%.
Wayyy less than 1%, huh? So like 0.2%? If the is indeed how you feel about the probability here, does that mean you would give me 500 to 1 odds on a bet?
So, hypothetically, if we bet $1,000 on 500:1 odds.... then if Trump doesn't peacefully transfer power, then I would get $500,000 and if he does peacefully transfer power, you would get $1,000...
$1,000... I mean, that's easy money, right?
Is there a single Trump supporter who would take that bet? I doubt it.
I think you're confusing a literary device with actual quantifiable analysis.
But hell, since you asked the question, the answer is no, of course I wouldn't bet $1000 on it, because I don't have half a million dollars to pay up if I lose. I have insurance on my house for the same reason - I think the odds that it gets wiped out by a fire or a tornado are less than 1 in 1000 during my lifetime, but I still pay $1000/year for insurance, because I don't want to assume the tail-end risk.
A better question to ask would be: What would the odds have to be for me to place a bet on Trump refusing a peaceful transfer of power? I would consider a wager if you gave me 1:500 odds, but I'd keep my money if you only gave me 1:100 odds.
-
Define peacefully?
If you mean that he's going to gracefully shake the hand of the next president, make some noises about how despite the campaign rhetoric he wishes him the best, etc, etc... no, I wouldn't take the bet.
If peaceful means "twitter shit storm, conspiracy theories, fake news accusations, and a bunch of noise and crazy as we know the man to be capable of from November to January... BUT ultimately leaving the office on the correct time without wrecking the place up too badly, I might take that bet.
If we define "peaceful transition" as anything short of Trump staging a military coup to stay in power, I'd take that bet.
-
I am pretty sure all of this Trump stuff is detracting from our group adoration of Bernie.
Back to Bernie...
I watched a video of Bernie talking to rural West Virginians (Trump country) in a town hall style gathering from back in 2017. He was literally sitting in a chair with citizens sitting right beside him, just inches away, all sort of huddled together, and his major arguments (healthcare for all, free college tuition, infrastructure spending, making rich pay their fair share) all got significant applause and support from the folks there. He kept drawing comparisons between Vermont and WV, and it really seemed to earn him a lot of traction.
I'm not saying that he would win any red states (or that any Dem would), but I think he makes a better showing than most would.
-
I hope he does a much better job of trying to connect with voters of color this time around, if he's going to actually be the nominee (which I don't actually think I want).
-
I am pretty sure all of this Trump stuff is detracting from our group adoration of Bernie.
Back to Bernie...
I watched a video of Bernie talking to rural West Virginians (Trump country) in a town hall style gathering from back in 2017. He was literally sitting in a chair with citizens sitting right beside him, just inches away, all sort of huddled together, and his major arguments (healthcare for all, free college tuition, infrastructure spending, making rich pay their fair share) all got significant applause and support from the folks there. He kept drawing comparisons between Vermont and WV, and it really seemed to earn him a lot of traction.
I'm not saying that he would win any red states (or that any Dem would), but I think he makes a better showing than most would.
I don't think Bernie would do well at all in the South. He did horribly against Hillary in the 2016 primaries in that region, costing himself any chance at the nomination. I think if he's the nominee, he loses every southern state but VA. I do think he could make up the ground lost in the South by outperforming in the Midwest.
-
Which Dem candidates do you think actually have a chance of winning a southern state in a general election showdown against Trump?
-
Which Dem candidates do you think actually have a chance of winning a southern state in a general election showdown against Trump?
Well, NC and FL went to Obama in 2008, and Obama won FL again in 2012, narrowly losing NC. A Democratic candidate won't win NC, or any southern state besides FL, unless they win in a landslide, so they really don't matter, but FL can be an absolutely critical piece of a winning electoral college map (just ask Al Gore).
So really, the question should be: What Democratic candidate can win Florida? I think Biden, Booker, Harris, and O'Rourke would do well there (in no particular order). I think Warren and Sanders would lose bigly. Klobuchar? I dunno. She might stand a chance, but I'd say she's no better than a toss-up at this point.
I'm not saying the candidates that would play well in FL are the only ones worthy of consideration, but I do believe that choosing Sanders is tantamount to conceding the whole South and basically going all in on the Midwest.
-
Which Dem candidates do you think actually have a chance of winning a southern state in a general election showdown against Trump?
Well, NC and FL went to Obama in 2008, and Obama won FL again in 2012, narrowly losing NC. A Democratic candidate won't win NC, or any southern state besides FL, unless they win in a landslide, so they really don't matter, but FL can be an absolutely critical piece of a winning electoral college map (just ask Al Gore).
So really, the question should be: What Democratic candidate can win Florida? I think Biden, Booker, Harris, and O'Rourke would do well there (in no particular order). I think Warren and Sanders would lose bigly. Klobuchar? I dunno. She might stand a chance, but I'd say she's no better than a toss-up at this point.
I'm not saying the candidates that would play well in FL are the only ones worthy of consideration, but I do believe that choosing Sanders is tantamount to conceding the whole South and basically going all in on the Midwest.
I think I agree with you.
-
Which Dem candidates do you think actually have a chance of winning a southern state in a general election showdown against Trump?
Sherrod Brown.
Where Trump on pretends and postures, this man is an actual defender of the working class.
Was against NAFTA and voted against DOMA. Democratic credentials, and can win Ohio and possibly the core of Trump's victory in 2016-the Midwest.
-
I've watched Sherrod Brown on some video clips. He makes a great first impression with me, and seems authentic and a little unpolished, sort of like Bernie, which I think people look for. I will read up more about him.
-
Which Dem candidates do you think actually have a chance of winning a southern state in a general election showdown against Trump?
Sherrod Brown.
Where Trump on pretends and postures, this man is an actual defender of the working class.
Was against NAFTA and voted against DOMA. Democratic credentials, and can win Ohio and possibly the core of Trump's victory in 2016-the Midwest.
I keep hearing his name, but like Nick I honestly don't know enough about him to have an opinion.
-
-SNIP-
I keep hearing his name, but like Nick I honestly don't know enough about him to have an opinion.
Who knew about Bernie in 2015?
-
-SNIP-
I keep hearing his name, but like Nick I honestly don't know enough about him to have an opinion.
Who knew about Bernie in 2015?
Totally - I'm not dismissing him, I'm just being honest. There's a lot of time between now and the primaries. Has he even announced, though?
-
Registered Republican from Ohio
My impression of Sherrod Brown is he is very liberal. Voted 8th most liberal senator. Wouldn't be a good choice if you wanted a more centrist candidate.
I think he is honest. He isn't abrasive. He doesn't talk like the electorate are morons.
He might have problems with the "me too" movement. His first wife filed a restraining order against him- physical abuse. She has since retracted that it ever occurred. Be interesting how that plays out if he runs.
-
Pick AOC for VP Bern. I dare ya!
She's not old enough. You need to be 35 to be President or Vice President, she's 29 currently. On the other hand, his age means that his VP pick is a bit more important than usual.
D'oh, shoulda looked up her age. And fricken A what the heck am I doing with my life?
Don't be too hard on yourself.
A year ago, she was tending bar, going nowhere.
Now she's the leader of the Dem Party and about to lead us to a Green Socialist Utopia!
Anyone can make it to the top!
-
Pick AOC for VP Bern. I dare ya!
She's not old enough. You need to be 35 to be President or Vice President, she's 29 currently. On the other hand, his age means that his VP pick is a bit more important than usual.
D'oh, shoulda looked up her age. And fricken A what the heck am I doing with my life?
Don't be too hard on yourself.
A year ago, she was tending bar, going nowhere.
Now she's the leader of the Dem Party and about to lead us to a Green Socialist Utopia!
Anyone can make it to the top!
I, for one, am glad we finally have someone in Congress who is willing to deal with the tough issues our nation is facing in the 21st century. Like cow farts.
-
- SNIP -
I, for one, am glad we finally have someone in Congress who is willing to deal with the tough issues our nation is facing in the 21st century. Like cow farts.
Yeh yeh cow farts so they tell us.
https://timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause-of-global-warming-meat-methane-CO2 (https://timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause-of-global-warming-meat-methane-CO2)
I just kinda think that the people riled against global warming are the same type that don't want us eating beef. I'm thinking that a lot of PETA people are into the anti global warming thing too. I am definitely not questioning global warming, but I do wonder whether a naturally occurring animal like a cow is a primary cause.
There used to be millions of buffalo roaming the great plains. Didn't they fart as much or more than cows?
Further thinking down this rabbit hole - In the time of the dinosaurs, the Earth was warmer. We are warming the Earth today with the fossil fuels left by the life of those ancient creatures. In the time of the dinosaurs, was it dinosaur farts that made the Earth warmer than it is today?
I will look for a candidate who does not ignore global warming issues, but I am not for the removal of the beef and dairy industries.
-
There used to be millions of buffalo roaming the great plains. Didn't they fart as much or more than cows?
Historically, there were 20 - 30 million buffalo roaming the great plains. https://defenders.org/bison/basic-facts (https://defenders.org/bison/basic-facts)
Currently, there are 94.759 million cattle in the US, concentrated in a much smaller area of land. https://beef2live.com/story-cattle-inventory-state-rankings-89-108182 (https://beef2live.com/story-cattle-inventory-state-rankings-89-108182). This of course, doesn't count the 2,500 farms raising bison.
Yes, both cows and buffalo fart. We are raising an awful lot more cows and buffalo than exist naturally though. It would be foolish to think that there are no repercussions to doing so.
-
There used to be millions of buffalo roaming the great plains. Didn't they fart as much or more than cows?
No, they didn't, because they were not breeded for speed growing and unbelievable milk giving. They only fed on grass, not on power food, hormones and antibiotics.
And of course there were a lot less of them.
Not to mention that nature had a few million years to adjust to their farts and there was an equilibrium. One without all the CO2 we put in the atmosphere with burning oil, chopping down woods etc.
-
OK OK - I happen to be one of those odd people that actually likes vegi-burgers. Pig Farts must contribute a lot too. They use everything but the squeal, but I'll bet there is no pig fart catcher.
So back to the subject at hand. What does old Bernie say about cow farts? Nothing specific, but he certainly does list a lot of specific items. It's kind of impressive. This is under the environment heading:
Leave a planet to our kids that is healthy & habitable. (Apr 2018)
Climate change will lead to international security crises. (Nov 2015)
Advocate of animal welfare and humane treatment. (Sep 2015)
Protect important watersheds and wildlife areas. (Sep 2015)
GMOs are ok, but only with required labeling. (Sep 2015)
Our kids will ask why we made planet less habitable. (Oct 2013)
Sophisticated equipment transformed farms to overproduction. (Oct 2012)
Very large farms raise questions about animal cruelty. (Oct 2012)
Cut subsidies of wealthy farmers; increase grazing fees. (Jun 1997)
City residents often frozen out of development decisions. (Jun 1997)
Voted YES on protecting ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems. (May 2013)
Voted YES on $2 billion more for Cash for Clunkers program. (Aug 2009)
Voted NO on prohibiting eminent domain for use as parks or grazing land. (Dec 2007)
Voted YES on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. (May 2006)
Voted NO on deauthorizing "critical habitat" for endangered species. (Sep 2005)
Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003)
Prohibits commercial logging on Federal public lands. (Apr 2001)
Rated 90% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
Promote conservation of rare felids & canids. (Mar 2007)
Make tax deduction permanent for conservation easements. (Mar 2009)
Regulate all dog breeders down to kennels of 50 dogs. (Feb 2011)
Prohibit invasive research on great apes. (Apr 2011)
Prohibits breeding or possessing Big Cat species. (Sep 2012)
Rated 100% by HSLF, indicating a pro-animal welfare voting record. (Jan 2012)
Require labeling genetically engineered food. (Apr 2013)
Strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting. (Jan 2007)
-
They say Bernie Sanders is currently the front runner.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/439206-the-memo-sanders-becomes-dem-frontrunner (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/439206-the-memo-sanders-becomes-dem-frontrunner)
It's a long time from now until November of 2020. People may be very tired of him by then.
-
In my neck of the woods which now is going to play a big role in the elections I think it would be a mistake for Sanders. Yes I am a republican but I am right at the center and have a ton of friends that are Democrats and they all say the same thing that Bernie is to far a leap to the extreme left at this time. If Socialism is what the people eventually want I think its an election or two away yet. There are alot of republicans like myself that are willing to vote Democrat but its going to take someone that is closer to the center. End of the day there is good and bad on both sides and the last election and this one is shaping up to be a big Circus act so hopefully a good leader comes out of all these numbers of runners that really represents a large mass of the people so we can reduce the division in this nation of ours
-
In my neck of the woods which now is going to play a big role in the elections I think it would be a mistake for Sanders. Yes I am a republican but I am right at the center and have a ton of friends that are Democrats and they all say the same thing that Bernie is to far a leap to the extreme left at this time. If Socialism is what the people eventually want I think its an election or two away yet. There are alot of republicans like myself that are willing to vote Democrat but its going to take someone that is closer to the center. End of the day there is good and bad on both sides and the last election and this one is shaping up to be a big Circus act so hopefully a good leader comes out of all these numbers of runners that really represents a large mass of the people so we can reduce the division in this nation of ours
Important to note that the mid point between Republican and Democrat is not the center . . . it's actually pretty far to the right of the middle.
-
In my neck of the woods which now is going to play a big role in the elections I think it would be a mistake for Sanders. Yes I am a republican but I am right at the center and have a ton of friends that are Democrats and they all say the same thing that Bernie is to far a leap to the extreme left at this time. If Socialism is what the people eventually want I think its an election or two away yet. There are alot of republicans like myself that are willing to vote Democrat but its going to take someone that is closer to the center. End of the day there is good and bad on both sides and the last election and this one is shaping up to be a big Circus act so hopefully a good leader comes out of all these numbers of runners that really represents a large mass of the people so we can reduce the division in this nation of ours
Important to note that the mid point between Republican and Democrat is not the center . . . it's actually pretty far to the right of the middle.
From a European view point, the Democrats are a right wing party.
And btw. Sanders is not a socialist, he is a social democrat (again, this may be EU POV, but I think he called himself this way). Once his views were (mostly) right in the center, even in the US.
btw. what do you guys think of that? (Mainly the article, less the video itself)
https://boingboing.net/2019/04/17/aoc-instant-messenger.html
-
It's hilarious to me that when you break down Bernie's priorities...
A living wage
Healthcare for all
Investment in education
That the vaasssst majority of people want those things and agree with his policies, BUT...as soon as the GOP labels it "socialism," a lot of the support shrinks.
Labels are so powerful. And the GOP are masters at labeling things and framing issues, even when they are wrong on substance (which is most of the time).
-
It's hilarious to me that when you break down Bernie's priorities...
A living wage
Healthcare for all
Investment in education
That the vaasssst majority of people want those things and agree with his policies, BUT...as soon as the GOP labels it "socialism," a lot of the support shrinks.
Labels are so powerful. And the GOP are masters at labeling things and framing issues, even when they are wrong on substance (which is most of the time).
This is the problem. Dems say GOP is the Master at Labeling things and GOP says Dems are so whats the point of even bringing it up. I don't know a single Republican that doesn't want the same thing you claim to be Bernies 3 top priorities. The issue is how to get there so instead of acting like one side is more innocent than the other encourage people to work together.
-
It's hilarious to me that when you break down Bernie's priorities...
A living wage
Healthcare for all
Investment in education
That the vaasssst majority of people want those things and agree with his policies, BUT...as soon as the GOP labels it "socialism," a lot of the support shrinks.
Labels are so powerful. And the GOP are masters at labeling things and framing issues, even when they are wrong on substance (which is most of the time).
This is the problem. Dems say GOP is the Master at Labeling things and GOP says Dems are so whats the point of even bringing it up. I don't know a single Republican that doesn't want the same thing you claim to be Bernies 3 top priorities. The issue is how to get there so instead of acting like one side is more innocent than the other encourage people to work together.
Weird. In my neck of the woods I don't know a single Republican who wants *any* of those three things. <shrug>
-
It's hilarious to me that when you break down Bernie's priorities...
A living wage
Healthcare for all
Investment in education
That the vaasssst majority of people want those things and agree with his policies, BUT...as soon as the GOP labels it "socialism," a lot of the support shrinks.
Labels are so powerful. And the GOP are masters at labeling things and framing issues, even when they are wrong on substance (which is most of the time).
This is the problem. Dems say GOP is the Master at Labeling things and GOP says Dems are so whats the point of even bringing it up. I don't know a single Republican that doesn't want the same thing you claim to be Bernies 3 top priorities. The issue is how to get there so instead of acting like one side is more innocent than the other encourage people to work together.
Weird. In my neck of the woods I don't know a single Republican who wants *any* of those three things. <shrug>
I don't know a single Republican politician who supports those things. They defund public schools, rail against living wages based on their trickle-down theories, and claim that the insurance companies, magnaminous as we all know they all are, are the saviors of healthcare! Let the insurance companies battle each other, and rates will fall, and yes your family will reap the benefits because it's not like insurance companies are profit-driven entities who deny claims and raise rates to ensure they make healthy profits!
-
It's hilarious to me that when you break down Bernie's priorities...
A living wage
Healthcare for all
Investment in education
That the vaasssst majority of people want those things and agree with his policies, BUT...as soon as the GOP labels it "socialism," a lot of the support shrinks.
Labels are so powerful. And the GOP are masters at labeling things and framing issues, even when they are wrong on substance (which is most of the time).
This is the problem. Dems say GOP is the Master at Labeling things and GOP says Dems are so whats the point of even bringing it up. I don't know a single Republican that doesn't want the same thing you claim to be Bernies 3 top priorities. The issue is how to get there so instead of acting like one side is more innocent than the other encourage people to work together.
Weird. In my neck of the woods I don't know a single Republican who wants *any* of those three things. <shrug>
I don't know a single Republican politician who supports those things. They defund public schools, rail against living wages based on their trickle-down theories, and claim that the insurance companies, magnaminous as we all know they all are, are the saviors of healthcare! Let the insurance companies battle each other, and rates will fall, and yes your family will reap the benefits because it's not like insurance companies are profit-driven entities who deny claims and raise rates to ensure they make healthy profits!
Yeah, I sure don't hear Republican politicians supporting those things. And the Republican voters I know sometimes manage to come close to realizing that these are things that should be priorities, but have been brainwashed by the Republican line so they veer away in fear before they actually get to the point of support.
A living wage? Why should a person who works fast food be paid as much as a linesman? (the Republican talking point to short-circuit any discussion that might end up with the idea that we are all human and maybe deserve to make a living wage if we work a full-time job...)
Healthcare for all? Why the hell should I be paying for some deadbeat's health insurance? Why should I pay for some fatass who gets sick because they make bad choices? (Again, the talking point designed to short-circuit any discussion of the fact that our healthcare system is seriously broken and that the actual reason it's expensive isn't because some people who are unemployed get sick -- and also of why it is that there's such a problem with overweight in this country...)
Investment in education? Why should I be paying for someone else's kid's education? Plus, teachers unions are the problem! And also..., Throwing Money At The Problem Isn't A Solution... etc. (A long and successful Republican campaign to divorce people from the notion of the general welfare mentioned in the Constitution)
Oh: and you can toss "illegal immigration!!!!" into the mix of all three of these, too: I ain't payin' for illegal immigrants to have ____ (fill in the blank). These triggers are well-known to be effective when used with Republicans. Their degree of veracity doesn't really matter.
-
- SNIP -
Yeah, I sure don't hear Republican politicians supporting those things. And the Republican voters I know sometimes manage to come close to realizing that these are things that should be priorities, but have been brainwashed by the Republican line so they veer away in fear before they actually get to the point of support.
A living wage? Why should a person who works fast food be paid as much as a linesman? (the Republican talking point to short-circuit any discussion that might end up with the idea that we are all human and maybe deserve to make a living wage if we work a full-time job...)
Healthcare for all? Why the hell should I be paying for some deadbeat's health insurance? Why should I pay for some fatass who gets sick because they make bad choices? (Again, the talking point designed to short-circuit any discussion of the fact that our healthcare system is seriously broken and that the actual reason it's expensive isn't because some people who are unemployed get sick -- and also of why it is that there's such a problem with overweight in this country...)
Investment in education? Why should I be paying for someone else's kid's education? Plus, teachers unions are the problem! And also..., Throwing Money At The Problem Isn't A Solution... etc. (A long and successful Republican campaign to divorce people from the notion of the general welfare mentioned in the Constitution)
Oh: and you can toss "illegal immigration!!!!" into the mix of all three of these, too: I ain't payin' for illegal immigrants to have ____ (fill in the blank). These triggers are well-known to be effective when used with Republicans. Their degree of veracity doesn't really matter.
If written properly, selfishness can be a fine art. Am I my brother's keeper? Hell no. I don't even like the SOB. I'm out for number one and I ain't ashamed of it I don't want to hear any more stories of the needs of other people. Let them work for everything the same as me. If they won't or can't work too bad. That ain't my problem and I don't have to pay for their troubles.
The same philosophy can, of course, be written in high brow language. When written this way, it allows the reader to not only feel he is better than his or her fellow human being, but to feel smarter as well.
In my neck of the woods there were people that pulled together and helped one another. It was a good thing. They felt it was the right thing. Something has gone terribly wrong.
-
A living wage? Why should a person who works fast food be paid as much as a linesman?
Why doesn't a linesman (whatever that is, from assembly line?) gets more than someone putting patties between bad bread?
Why the hell should I be paying for some deadbeat's health insurance?
Why should anybody else pay for your cancer treatment, as this exceeds all the money you ever paid?
Why should I be paying for someone else's kid's education?
Would you prefer to have your cancer treatment be done by someone who cannot read?
I ain't payin' for illegal immigrants to have ____
And why are you paying some billionaires to make money from all those three things above?
-
Bernie got booed.
He dropped a few names and got booed. Take a look. It's not long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAXzS9I0zHc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAXzS9I0zHc)
I was surprised. After watching it, I'm not sure why they booed.
She the People - https://www.shethepeople.org/about (https://www.shethepeople.org/about)
Now - old Joe Biden is running.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/25/joe-biden-video-1290334 (https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/25/joe-biden-video-1290334)
Do you think he wold have been booed by "She the People?"
-
Bernie got booed.
He dropped a few names and got booed. Take a look. It's not long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAXzS9I0zHc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAXzS9I0zHc)
I was surprised. After watching it, I'm not sure why they booed.
She the People - https://www.shethepeople.org/about (https://www.shethepeople.org/about)
Now - old Joe Biden is running.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/25/joe-biden-video-1290334 (https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/25/joe-biden-video-1290334)
Do you think he wold have been booed by "She the People?"
They were pissed because he gave canned answers, and because the only thing he seemed to be able to say was a couple things he did literally decades ago. As though that ought to be enough. And he didn’t understand why it wasn’t. And then... that condescending finger-wag thing...
Ugh. No.
-
Bernie got booed.
He dropped a few names and got booed. Take a look. It's not long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAXzS9I0zHc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAXzS9I0zHc)
I was surprised. After watching it, I'm not sure why they booed.
I believe the audience wanted him to talk about how to fight against white nationalists. Bernie's platform focuses more on how prevent people from becoming white nationalists so he didn't have the answer the audience wanted, and so he got booed. In other words, he got booed for what he didn't say, not for what he did.
You can see the Andrew Yang struggle a bit with very much the same question in his town hall here: https://youtu.be/5Q6sDKvwdO0?t=180
Essentially both Yang and Sanders's platforms are based on the assertion that the actual problem we face is rising tribalism in the US. If that is indeed the problem, the solution is to identify and fight the roots of that change in our society. Roots like growing economic insecurity, which we do know from countless studies makes people act more racist and hateful. If we identify and confront those roots, fewer people will become radicalized supporters of hateful ideologies. So Sanders focuses on questions of inequality rather than race, and Yang focuses on economic fixes to social instability (like the freedom dividend).
I think both of those approaches are more likely to work, but it's not nearly as emotionally satisfying as an answer which is a full throated condemnation of the bad racist people (and to be clear white nationalists really are evil and bad). This second answer externalizes the problem. There aren't underlying structural reasons we have more bad racist people today than in recent decades. They are just bad people, we need to band together, fight and defeat them, and then our lives will be better. (And to be clear, it really is important for society to come together and condemn white nationalism and other hateful and discriminatory ideologies wherever they rear their heads. I just don't think that doing only that will be enough to solve things.)
The best analogy I can think of is when you hear people on the right talk about islamic extremism or islamic terrorism. Everyone agrees terrorism and violence is bad, but left-wing responses to questions about that issue tend to focus more on "how to we prevent muslims from becoming radicalized in the first place" and right wing responses to questions about that issue tend focus more on "I'm going to protect you from those bad muslims, or even from muslims generally.*"
Switch "left" and "right" for two different wings of the democratic party, and "islamic terrorism" for "white nationalism" and you have the dilemma democratic presidential candidates confront today.
*"...But the approaches I will use will radicalize other muslims who previously weren't."
-
Bernie got booed.
He dropped a few names and got booed. Take a look. It's not long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAXzS9I0zHc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAXzS9I0zHc)
I was surprised. After watching it, I'm not sure why they booed.
I believe the audience wanted him to talk about how to fight against white nationalists. Bernie's platform focuses more on how prevent people from becoming white nationalists so he didn't have the answer the audience wanted, and so he got booed. In other words, he got booed for what he didn't say, not for what he did.
You can see the Andrew Yang struggle a bit with very much the same question in his town hall here: https://youtu.be/5Q6sDKvwdO0?t=180
Essentially both Yang and Sanders's platforms are based on the assertion that the actual problem we face is rising tribalism in the US. If that is indeed the problem, the solution is to identify and fight the roots of that change in our society. Roots like growing economic insecurity, which we do know from countless studies makes people act more racist and hateful. If we identify and confront those roots, fewer people will become radicalized supporters of hateful ideologies. So Sanders focuses on questions of inequality rather than race, and Yang focuses on economic fixes to social instability (like the freedom dividend).
I think both of those approaches are more likely to work, but it's not nearly as emotionally satisfying as an answer which is a full throated condemnation of the bad racist people (and to be clear white nationalists really are evil and bad). This second answer externalizes the problem. There aren't underlying structural reasons we have more bad racist people today than in recent decades. They are just bad people, we need to band together, fight and defeat them, and then our lives will be better. (And to be clear, it really is important for society to come together and condemn white nationalism and other hateful and discriminatory ideologies wherever they rear their heads. I just don't think that doing only that will be enough to solve things.)
The best analogy I can think of is when you hear people on the right talk about islamic extremism or islamic terrorism. Everyone agrees terrorism and violence is bad, but left-wing responses to questions about that issue tend to focus more on "how to we prevent muslims from becoming radicalized in the first place" and right wing responses to questions about that issue tend focus more on "I'm going to protect you from those bad muslims, or even from muslims generally.*"
Switch "left" and "right" for two different wings of the democratic party, and "islamic terrorism" for "white nationalism" and you have the dilemma democratic presidential candidates confront today.
*"...But the approaches I will use will radicalize other muslims who previously weren't."
I honestly truly believe that the whole "white nationalist" phobia is largely concocted by the media to frighten people into clicking on articles in a desperate attempt to get ad revenue in the age of Ad-Block Plus. Most of the supposedly white nationalist memes and posts are created by shit-stirring middle school children who aren't being monitored by their parents while they post on websites like 4chan. The reality is that almost the entire population of the United States is composed of normal people with moderate views who don't really get to have a voice, because being an even-keeled reasonable person isn't exciting enough to get clicks.
Even the whole Trump phenomenon from 2016 was largely the invention of the media who cynically exploited his histrionics and bombastic statements to get ad revenue. He only really started to get support because the media purposefully gave him millions and millions of eyeballs and lots and lots of exposure for no charge, while his opponents struggled to get their own message out.
The 2016 election didn't even need Russian interference because the mainstream media did a good enough job of it on their own.
-
- KER SNIP -
I honestly truly believe that the whole "white nationalist" phobia is largely concocted by the media to frighten people into clicking on articles in a desperate attempt to get ad revenue in the age of Ad-Block Plus. Most of the supposedly white nationalist memes and posts are created by shit-stirring middle school children who aren't being monitored by their parents while they post on websites like 4chan. The reality is that almost the entire population of the United States is composed of normal people with moderate views who don't really get to have a voice, because being an even-keeled reasonable person isn't exciting enough to get clicks.
Even the whole Trump phenomenon from 2016 was largely the invention of the media who cynically exploited his histrionics and bombastic statements to get ad revenue. He only really started to get support because the media purposefully gave him millions and millions of eyeballs and lots and lots of exposure for no charge, while his opponents struggled to get their own message out.
The 2016 election didn't even need Russian interference because the mainstream media did a good enough job of it on their own.
I think you are right. So - What are they going to do to keep the ratings up and people entertained during this go-around? Some of these candidates like old Bernie and Elizabeth Warren make use of facts and figures to make their points. This takes time. During this time some viewers will drop off. They will need to come up with some sort of diversionary tactic to keep their core audience glued to the screen. Will Trump be enough or will they work to get another candidate which they can report on? Jesse Ventura may make an interesting candidate. He is brash and opinionated. His voice is the type that could be used for lots of sound bytes.
-
- KER SNIP -
I honestly truly believe that the whole "white nationalist" phobia is largely concocted by the media to frighten people into clicking on articles in a desperate attempt to get ad revenue in the age of Ad-Block Plus. Most of the supposedly white nationalist memes and posts are created by shit-stirring middle school children who aren't being monitored by their parents while they post on websites like 4chan. The reality is that almost the entire population of the United States is composed of normal people with moderate views who don't really get to have a voice, because being an even-keeled reasonable person isn't exciting enough to get clicks.
Even the whole Trump phenomenon from 2016 was largely the invention of the media who cynically exploited his histrionics and bombastic statements to get ad revenue. He only really started to get support because the media purposefully gave him millions and millions of eyeballs and lots and lots of exposure for no charge, while his opponents struggled to get their own message out.
The 2016 election didn't even need Russian interference because the mainstream media did a good enough job of it on their own.
I think you are right. So - What are they going to do to keep the ratings up and people entertained during this go-around? Some of these candidates like old Bernie and Elizabeth Warren make use of facts and figures to make their points. This takes time. During this time some viewers will drop off. They will need to come up with some sort of diversionary tactic to keep their core audience glued to the screen. Will Trump be enough or will they work to get another candidate which they can report on? Jesse Ventura may make an interesting candidate. He is brash and opinionated. His voice is the type that could be used for lots of sound bytes.
Well, right now the media is pushing the narrative that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is some kind of important person, despite the fact that she's a freshman Representative who doesn't even chair any committees and doesn't receive much support from her party. It's because she says weird left-wing fringe stuff that produces outrage, which means clicks, which means ad revenue. Nobody from her party has any respect for her because she's kind of like a loud child shouting random silly stuff that has no connection to any kind of coherent policy. But when she posts things about cow farts causing climate change or about people in Alabama getting ringworm due to billionaires, it produces ad revenue for the dying mainstream media, so they keep pushing her.
-
Well, right now the media is pushing the narrative that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is some kind of important person, despite the fact that she's a freshman Representative who doesn't even chair any committees and doesn't receive much support from her party. It's because she says weird left-wing fringe stuff that produces outrage, which means clicks, which means ad revenue. Nobody from her party has any respect for her because she's kind of like a loud child shouting random silly stuff that has no connection to any kind of coherent policy. But when she posts things about cow farts causing climate change or about people in Alabama getting ringworm due to billionaires, it produces ad revenue for the dying mainstream media, so they keep pushing her.
May I correct you on a few things here ;)
AOC is important not despite, but because she is an unimportant freshman and still everyone established - especially the "white old man" gets pissed off about her so much.
Also many of her party have respect for her because she rejects the "you need to get into our lines, get like we, take 20 years" in the face of the big problems. The Democratic Establishment does not like her, of course, as they also hate everyone else that is a threat to them - see their order that nobody who challenges an incumbrent gets any official help from the party.
And, even if you don't like it, what she "shouts" is, as far as I have seen, a neither far-left (from a view that is not far-right) nor "no connection to any kind of coherent policy". Quite the opposite, I have seen her a lot more informed than the other people in the room - and that cow farts are one reason for climate change is just basic science established for decades.
-
FOX picks on Bernie.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sander-nista-archives-show-bernies-past-praise-of-socialist-revolutionaries (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sander-nista-archives-show-bernies-past-praise-of-socialist-revolutionaries)
They are raking up some pretty good muck about him.
I still like old Bernie. I think if he is elected he will keep us out of some unnecessary foreign military entanglements. He's made a few mistakes over the years and said some wrong things. He is not a neocon. I didn't like those guys.
-
Well, right now the media is pushing the narrative that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is some kind of important person, despite the fact that she's a freshman Representative who doesn't even chair any committees and doesn't receive much support from her party. It's because she says weird left-wing fringe stuff that produces outrage, which means clicks, which means ad revenue. Nobody from her party has any respect for her because she's kind of like a loud child shouting random silly stuff that has no connection to any kind of coherent policy. But when she posts things about cow farts causing climate change or about people in Alabama getting ringworm due to billionaires, it produces ad revenue for the dying mainstream media, so they keep pushing her.
May I correct you on a few things here ;)
AOC is important not despite, but because she is an unimportant freshman and still everyone established - especially the "white old man" gets pissed off about her so much.
Also many of her party have respect for her because she rejects the "you need to get into our lines, get like we, take 20 years" in the face of the big problems. The Democratic Establishment does not like her, of course, as they also hate everyone else that is a threat to them - see their order that nobody who challenges an incumbrent gets any official help from the party.
And, even if you don't like it, what she "shouts" is, as far as I have seen, a neither far-left (from a view that is not far-right) nor "no connection to any kind of coherent policy". Quite the opposite, I have seen her a lot more informed than the other people in the room - and that cow farts are one reason for climate change is just basic science established for decades.
I take it that you consume a lot of mainstream media. Have you heard about africanized bees? They're coming to get us all!
-
I follow AOC, although my political preferences do not match with hers. I think she’s doing something interesting and important. Through social media, she is showing us what it is like to be a member of Congress. She filmed the office lottery. She opened up her budget book. She takes us through the halls and tunnels of the Capitol. She sits at night with her ramen noodles on Instagram Live and talks about her day. She wrote a children’s story about the Green New Deal. I don’t know if she can keep up the pace, but I’m 62 years old, and she’s the best pure communicator I have seen since Ronald Reagan.
-
FOX picks on Bernie.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sander-nista-archives-show-bernies-past-praise-of-socialist-revolutionaries (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sander-nista-archives-show-bernies-past-praise-of-socialist-revolutionaries)
They are raking up some pretty good muck about him.
I still like old Bernie. I think if he is elected he will keep us out of some unnecessary foreign military entanglements. He's made a few mistakes over the years and said some wrong things. He is not a neocon. I didn't like those guys.
So what Fox does not like about Sanders is that he liked people who stood up against a corrupt dictator? And that he didn't liked Reagan who interfered in another country's business and used military force and subersive division tactics to destroy those people? And who (that is the US taxpayer) got sentenced to 2,4 billion dollar "restauration" by the International Court of Justice? (Still unpaid of course, even after the UN resolution.)
Yeah, I can see why Fox News hates that there is someone who reminds them on that ^^
-
I follow AOC, although my political preferences do not match with hers. I think she’s doing something interesting and important. Through social media, she is showing us what it is like to be a member of Congress. She filmed the office lottery. She opened up her budget book. She takes us through the halls and tunnels of the Capitol. She sits at night with her ramen noodles on Instagram Live and talks about her day. She wrote a children’s story about the Green New Deal. I don’t know if she can keep up the pace, but I’m 62 years old, and she’s the best pure communicator I have seen since Ronald Reagan.
Absolutely.
I don't support all of her positions either, but really that's not the point. She is whip smart and her strides towards transparency are so refreshing. I read her tweets about how new Reps are "trained" and it was really eye opening. I also read her tweets about her budget, how she pays her interns, etc. The fact that some are trying to "shame her" for being a regular person are disgusting. And I think coal miners will like her. She is imperfect, but authentic. I would take another few dozen AOCs in the House in a heartbeat, even some conservative versions of her, who are focused communicating with their constituents in an honest and open way and who are open to working with the "other side."
AOC was recently interviewed and was asked about which Republicans she had befriended and she said she has befriended several, but is legit afraid that she would hurt their careers if she mentioned who they are. Great political environment we have going here.
-
Unlike the last election I doubt Bernie will back the democratic candidate. Possibly taking some of the % of dem vote in the US 2 party system
-
Unlike the last election I doubt Bernie will back the democratic candidate. Possibly taking some of the % of dem vote in the US 2 party system
You think so? Compared to 2016, it seems like almost all of the major candidates have platforms much more similar to the Sanders '16/'20 ones than H. Clinton did in '16.
-
I think it depends on how desperate Bernie is to be president. There's something about:
his messaging (the whole "Help us fight the 'Never Sanders' movement!"),
and the constant begging for money,
and him immediately gunning for Biden,
and his online supporters being so negative against the other candidates (I put the 'YangGang' up with the Bernie Bros too),
It all seems desperate to me at this very early stage. He knows this is his last chance because of his age, and I fear his rhetoric might heat up down the line to the point where more of his supporters don't go with the voteblue plan.
-
and his online supporters being so negative against the other candidates (I put the 'YangGang' up with the Bernie Bros too),
Huh, this does not match what I've seen personally, but the internet is such a large place we could be feeling different parts of the same elephant.
-
So - Joe Biden is in the race. He is doing well and this is getting Bernie a bit riled. Bernie is an idealistic person. He has stood for the same things forever. Maybe, Joe is just a bit more of a real politician. What's he stand for? It may not be quite as clear cut. Time will provide a bit more focus on what he presently believes.
https://www.ontheissues.org/Joe_Biden.htm (https://www.ontheissues.org/Joe_Biden.htm) Collection of past history.
Looks like he's jumped right over Bernie in the polls. Almost 10 percent higher.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/28/18285455/2020-presidential-election-polls-joe-biden-democratic-primary-candidates (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/28/18285455/2020-presidential-election-polls-joe-biden-democratic-primary-candidates)
Perhaps, he is easier for the public to accept than Bernie. Bernie wants full replacement of some of the parts of our social system and Joe looks to be more of an incrementalist. I'm with Bernie on lots of this stuff. It's better to cut the dog's tail off all at once rather than at a piece at a time.
I get the idea that the powers at be are more than a bit afraid of Old Bernie. They are not sure how to handle him.
-
Bernie is such a crotchety old geezer, he makes me feel young. And I'm not young.
Though with a doddering Joe Biden also running (he was getting confused during his announcement speech-that's not a good sign, though not unexpected given his age), Bernie is a "youth movement." :)
-
Bernie is such a crotchety old geezer, he makes me feel young. And I'm not young.
Though with a doddering Joe Biden also running (he was getting confused during his announcement speech-that's not a good sign, though not unexpected given his age), Bernie is a "youth movement." :)
Other than their characteristics of being older than you, is there message bad? Both these people have long experience. Much of it has been in touting policies to help the common good.
-
Bernie is such a crotchety old geezer, he makes me feel young. And I'm not young.
Though with a doddering Joe Biden also running (he was getting confused during his announcement speech-that's not a good sign, though not unexpected given his age), Bernie is a "youth movement." :)
Other than their characteristics of being older than you, is there message bad? Both these people have long experience. Much of it has been in touting policies to help the common good.
Come on. If elected, either Sanders or Biden would be the Oldest President Ever Elected. Not to mention Oldest President Ever Elected To A First Term.
Age-related mental decline is a real thing. Just look at our current president. It has nothing to do with "being older than you".
Edit: Okay, in libertarian4321's case it's probably mostly Trolling. But it's still a real concern.
-
Age related discrimination is also a very real thing. I've watched both of these potential presidential candidates and both of them seem to demonstrate a large degree of mental accuity.
-
Age related discrimination is also a very real thing. I've watched both of these potential presidential candidates and both of them seem to demonstrate a large degree of mental accuity.
Age discrimination is also illegal, and also specifically does not include being forced to retire. Usually at around 65 or so.
I like both Sanders and Biden. But there's no getting around the fact that they are old. So is Trump for that matter, so if they are his eventual opponents it may not make much of a difference. But still old.
-
The United States is old. The Earth is old. The moon is old. They are all still good and I expect will be good for the next 4 years.
Let's hope these guys are good for 4 more too and at least give them a chance. They may do well in their last rodeo.
-
The United States is old. The Earth is old. The moon is old. They are all still good and I expect will be good for the next 4 years.
Let's hope these guys are good for 4 more too and at least give them a chance. They may do well in their last rodeo.
Those things don't suffer mental decline due to old age. They're not people :)
Mental decline can happen rapidly and unexpectedly in old age. We should also take into consideration that the older someone is the greater their chance of suddenly becoming ill and/or dying. These things aren't a fault of the individual, they're just reality. For a position as important as the presidency I don't care about fairness or age discrimination, I want the best available person for the position.
-
Age related discrimination is also a very real thing. I've watched both of these potential presidential candidates and both of them seem to demonstrate a large degree of mental accuity.
Age discrimination is also illegal, and also specifically does not include being forced to retire. Usually at around 65 or so.
I like both Sanders and Biden. But there's no getting around the fact that they are old. So is Trump for that matter, so if they are his eventual opponents it may not make much of a difference. But still old.
Nobody forces you to retire. You have a chance there getting help, but that is all.
The same goes for old age: There are people who get senile. Most of them are old. But neither all nor everyone.
If age was really a problem, every constitution around the world would have a maximum voting age, like minimum voting age, right? (Yes, I know the true reason is because they are mostly written by old men ;) )
-
If he won, Bernie Sanders would be 79 come inauguration day, 2021. He would then have a life expectancy of 8 years. (With Biden, it's 78 and 9, so really the same)
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
Do we really want to cut it that close, statistically speaking? And that's just death! It doesn't count for mental decline. Yes, I'm sure there are plenty of stories of old people being on the top of their game one day and then dropping dead the next, but generally speaking you're going to see some decline in those last years.
I don't dislike Bernie or Biden (hell I supported Bernie in 2016), but four years makes a big difference at these ages, and this year, unlike in 2016, we have a ton of more youthful candidates to select from.
-
It's hard to argue against facts. Either one of these guys could be the victim of senility. Right now, I thought they both looked pretty good.
I tried to think of another president who was old. The only one i could think of was Ronald Reagan. There have been many claims that he suffered from senility while in the White House.
There are a lot of better candidates running this time. (Well, maybe not Donald.) One of the remarkable things to note is that they are promulgating Bernie's "radical" ideas from 2016. So, in a way even if he isn't the anointed one, he'll still win.
I listened to Joe Biden's speech and picked on the "Health Care is a Right." Sounded quite familiar.
If he isn't selected, he's still a Senator and will still do a lot of good.
-
I mean dementia onset rates start climbing even in people's 60s. If you assume the potential two term presidency and you want to be really safe about who you give the nuclear codes to you could easily make an argument for focusing on candidates at or below 50 when the race for the nomination for president starts a couple of years before anyone is finally going to take office. That'd leave us with just Booker,* O’Rourke, Castro, Yang, Buttigieg, and Gabbard.
Note, I'm not making this argument. Just pointing out that if you are going to worry about the age of the nominee vis-a-vis ability to remain mentally competent for 4 or 8 years, there are many more folks to worry about than just Biden and Sanders.
*Who'd be 51 at his inauguration but isn't yet. He's also probably be the first bachelor president in a rather long time. "I hate it that people assume I'd be a bachelor president. It's literally 700 days from now. You never know."
-
I guess I have to like what they stand for too.
I've liked what Tulsi Gabbard says, but her website does not seem chock'o'block full of what she stands for.
https://www.tulsi2020.com/ (https://www.tulsi2020.com/)
Getting out of these crazy wars sounds pretty good to me.
-
Yeah of those six I'd be varying degrees of happy with five as the eventual nominee and I think the same five would do a fine job as president.
Gabbard is too cozy with Bashar al-Assad for my taste.
-
She talked to him. Is that cozy?
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/10/tulsi-gabbard-assad-syria-1214882 (https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/10/tulsi-gabbard-assad-syria-1214882)
She was a soldier. She is a Senator. Maybe she is right that there is an entrenched group in our government that is saber happy. It does seem as though there are some public officials who want to shoot first and ask the questions later or maybe never.
Seems like they set Colin Powell up with some bad info in front of the UN a few years back.
All that money spent on overseas wars could have fixed a lot of potholes.
-
She was a soldier. She is a Senator. Maybe she is right that there is an entrenched group in our government that is saber happy. It does seem as though there are some public officials who want to shoot first and ask the questions later or maybe never.
While a great deal of your post is hard to falsify so we may each have to accept that we perceive the world differently, I can say when a great deal of confidence that Tulsi Gabbard is not a senator nor has she been on in the past.
Edit, with regard to the Syria issue, obviously different people are going to have different judgements on how good or bad her actions are, but I think it is misleading to summarize those actions as simply meeting with al-Assad.
By way of background, Rep. Gabbard’s trip has proven controversial for a number of reasons: She reportedly declined to inform House leadership in advance, met with Bashar al-Assad, toured with officials from a Lebanese political party that actively supports Assad, and received funding from an American organization that counts one of those same officials as its executive director. Moreover, both before and after traveling to Syria, the congresswoman channeled some of Assad’s positions on the war in statements to the public.
Source: https://www.lawfareblog.com/legal-analysis-rep-tulsi-gabbards-trip-syria
-
It could be misleading as I'm not one to follow the news as closely as others. I read your link. From the link:
"Will anything come of this? In theory, the House could impose disciplinary measures, but Rep. Gabbard’s trip doesn’t seem to be the type of conduct that warrants anything close to a severe response. Yes, she circumvented congressional leadership. And yes, she met with a notorious war criminal. But she appears to have been driven by genuine concern about U.S. policy and the conditions in Syria, rather than self-aggrandizement or other improper motives. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct might conceivably issue a letter of reproval or informally communicate an objection, but it’s hard to envision much more than that."
It doesn't bother me that she had a talk with a foreign leader. It may be a good thing that she had an independent talk. It may be a bad thing. I don't know.
I don't think she is going to get very far in the Presidential primaries, but I like the anti war message. I've talked to ex military people who have been to the middle east and they seem to be as confused about why we are there as I am.
How about Joe, the Democratic front-runner?
He doesn't have time to explain his health care plan.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/joe-biden-healthcare-2020-campaign-bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-a8898926.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/joe-biden-healthcare-2020-campaign-bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-a8898926.html)
Maybe it will be the same "terrific" one our president spoke of.
The guy has been in the political arena a long time. Where's the man with the plan?
-
Charter Schools?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/18/18630435/bernie-sanders-charter-schools-2020-presidential-candidates-policies (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/18/18630435/bernie-sanders-charter-schools-2020-presidential-candidates-policies)
I really don't know about this.
-
Charter Schools?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/18/18630435/bernie-sanders-charter-schools-2020-presidential-candidates-policies (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/18/18630435/bernie-sanders-charter-schools-2020-presidential-candidates-policies)
I really don't know about this.
It's easy: Charter school are those where the rich(er) people can bring their children so that they can withheld money from public schools without hurting themselves. The system also keeps away unfitting (aka non-white) friends from their children.
-
Charter Schools?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/18/18630435/bernie-sanders-charter-schools-2020-presidential-candidates-policies (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/18/18630435/bernie-sanders-charter-schools-2020-presidential-candidates-policies)
I really don't know about this.
It's easy: Charter school are those where the rich(er) people can bring their children so that they can withheld money from public schools without hurting themselves. The system also keeps away unfitting (aka non-white) friends from their children.
OK - So it continues the ongoing trend of dividing society. I guess it helps kids to get the "right" kind of education. So, it's a bit like the private schools rich folks send their kids to. I get it.
-
Charter Schools?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/18/18630435/bernie-sanders-charter-schools-2020-presidential-candidates-policies (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/18/18630435/bernie-sanders-charter-schools-2020-presidential-candidates-policies)
I really don't know about this.
It's easy: Charter school are those where the rich(er) people can bring their children so that they can withheld money from public schools without hurting themselves. The system also keeps away unfitting (aka non-white) friends from their children.
Easy but not correct, at least in some states. E.g., https://lacharterschools.org/about-charter-schools/:
Charter school students have similar demographic characteristics to students in all public schools in Louisiana, but charter schools serve a larger percentage of economically disadvantaged students and black students.
-
Charter Schools?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/18/18630435/bernie-sanders-charter-schools-2020-presidential-candidates-policies (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/18/18630435/bernie-sanders-charter-schools-2020-presidential-candidates-policies)
I really don't know about this.
It's easy: Charter school are those where the rich(er) people can bring their children so that they can withheld money from public schools without hurting themselves. The system also keeps away unfitting (aka non-white) friends from their children.
Easy but not correct, at least in some states. E.g., https://lacharterschools.org/about-charter-schools/:
Charter school students have similar demographic characteristics to students in all public schools in Louisiana, but charter schools serve a larger percentage of economically disadvantaged students and black students.
The source about charter schools is a charter school association? hm...
Also Loisiana is the worst example because of the after-Katrina specialities.
Anyway, Charter Schools are privately managed schools with less rules than normal schools (and which are at least partially exploited for profit).
They are often founded by parents who want to do something different to normal public schools. We can debate wether this is good or bad (not teaching evolution or sex ed), but the thing is that it does lead to fueling the circle of underpaid public schools -> privatization -> more underpayment (because there are charter schools, so we don't need to pay public schools, right?)
Also charter schools tend to be in certain areas, which alone creates a sort of bias.
In short, charter schools do not improve education (on average) while they introduce several (possible) problem points on an already burdened school system.
The same effort put into normal public schools should yield better results.
-
The source about charter schools is a charter school association? hm...
Actually, the source for the demographics in that article is "2015 student enrollment counts from the Louisiana Department of Education."
-
Charter Schools?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/18/18630435/bernie-sanders-charter-schools-2020-presidential-candidates-policies (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/18/18630435/bernie-sanders-charter-schools-2020-presidential-candidates-policies)
I really don't know about this.
It's easy: Charter school are those where the rich(er) people can bring their children so that they can withheld money from public schools without hurting themselves. The system also keeps away unfitting (aka non-white) friends from their children.
Easy but not correct, at least in some states. E.g., https://lacharterschools.org/about-charter-schools/:
Charter school students have similar demographic characteristics to students in all public schools in Louisiana, but charter schools serve a larger percentage of economically disadvantaged students and black students.
Just because the statewide demographics are similar between charter and other public schools doesn't mean that each individual school is diverse.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/04/15/white-parents-in-north-carolina-are-using-charter-schools-to-secede-from-the-education-system/?utm_term=.3dee7ca36565
Louisiana probably isn't the best example considering ~90% of public school students attend a charter school in New Orleans which in turn accounts for over half of the charter school students in the state.
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2014/05/30/317374739/new-orleans-district-moves-to-an-all-charter-system
-
The source about charter schools is a charter school association? hm...
Actually, the source for the demographics in that article is "2015 student enrollment counts from the Louisiana Department of Education."
I don't think the suggestion was that the data was false, rather it has been selectively presented.
-
The source about charter schools is a charter school association? hm...
Actually, the source for the demographics in that article is "2015 student enrollment counts from the Louisiana Department of Education."
I don't think the suggestion was that the data was false, rather it has been selectively presented.
What would you suggest as an unselective way to present it?
-
So Bernie is going to make a speech defending "Democratic Socialism."
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/447574-sanders-to-give-speech-defending-democratic-socialism (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/447574-sanders-to-give-speech-defending-democratic-socialism)
I don't see it as a big deal. I guess the big money interests don't like him. He gave a talk at the annual Wal-Mart stockholders meeting asking them to pay their employees a living wage. I think he was kind of ignored. Why should they raise the pay? He is asking them to respond to maybe a higher set of moral standards. Business people today abide by the law and do not take money out of their pocket for expenses when they don't have to.
I doubt whether Bernie's effort will have any impact on their bottom line. There will be no lawsuits filed. The subsidies received by their employees from the Federal government allows them another opportunity to keep their prices low and maintain market share.
-
He gave his speech. He said he will give a detailed explanation of what he will do. That is the opposite of sound bites. How will that sell?
45 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1PaKR-PaXg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1PaKR-PaXg)
-
Bernie is now joining the forgive all student loan bandwagon:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2019/06/24/student-loans-bernie-sanders/#7ab7cca63fc2
-
Bernie is now joining the forgive all student loan bandwagon:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2019/06/24/student-loans-bernie-sanders/#7ab7cca63fc2
And the Trump reelection campaign rejoices, watching their opposing party pull ever more to the left.
-
Will amnesty for student loans be a way of buying him votes? I presume that many of those who owe the bucks are now old enough to see the benefit in it for themselves. What's Trump offering this go-around? I wonder if he's got anything for me.
-
Bernie is now joining the forgive all student loan bandwagon:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2019/06/24/student-loans-bernie-sanders/#7ab7cca63fc2
And the Trump reelection campaign rejoices, watching their opposing party pull ever more to the left.
Funnily enough that is an extremely "right" thing (or should be) since after all better education is better for the economy und ultimately teh state budget because of higher incomes (=taxes). And less burden means more people getting it. (Of course, that mostly allows the "wrong" people to get a higher education, so the right hates it).
-
Will amnesty for student loans be a way of buying him votes? I presume that many of those who owe the bucks are now old enough to see the benefit in it for themselves. What's Trump offering this go-around? I wonder if he's got anything for me.
I haven't heard anything. I think he said he had a great health care plan. lol There's a whole laundry list of freebies that democrats are campaigning on:
free pre-K
UBI dividend (with exclusions)
$6000 tax credit (with exclusions)
baby bonds
reparations
free college
wiped out college debt
mandated paid family leave
free child care
healthcare for illegals / universal healthcare / public option / Medicare for all - not necessarily free
All that free stuff (or otherwise subsidized by taxpayers) would be tremendously expensive. Trump will probably push for more tax cuts, mostly for the wealthy.
-
Old Bernie the independent, who only joins the Democratic party when it's convenient for him.
We gonna act like the system isn’t rigged by the two parties to prevent third party candidates from competing? We’re you not alive in 2016 as the Democratic Party lubed up Bern’s anus and f*cked him in that spot?
Old Bernie the independent, who only joins the Democratic party when it’s convenient for him.
I’m pretty sure I addressed that. Take a look at the history of third party candidates. Years ago the Dems and Republican bastards teamed up to make it difficult for independent candidates to raise money and be competitive. He is using the system to get his message out.
Maybe if he was an actual Democrat, the party would have been more interested in backing his candidacy.
The republican bastards had non problem backing Trump, who was a registered democrat until 2009.
Well, they did... until they realized they didn’t have a choice.
This is accurate.
Wikipedia puts Bernie at 77. Creepy uncle Joe is 76 and Trump is 73.
Republican has a metric ton of candidates in 2015 as well. It happens. It will be interesting to see who emerges. Do you think it's the media who drives the candidate choice more than anything?
-
Ok, now that he's in, might as well jump the shark and *really* go for it. Pick AOC for VP Bern. I dare ya!
If there is ever a day when AOC is running for VP or POTUS I think I will become a political activist and spend my time trying to convince people not to vote for her. God help us all.
+1
-
As much as I like Bernie, Democrats want a more moderate party.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/245462/democrats-favor-moderate-party-gop-conservative.aspx
Whether the DNC realizes this in time is the question. Or are they re-running 2016?
As for your last statement, I don't really get it. The DNC last time chose the moderate over the further left guy. So, how would they be re-running 2016?
Hillary didn't lose the election because she was too moderate. She lost the election because she was Hillary.
+1. She didn't work hard enough and took the midwest for granted.
-
I haven't looked into the data but I wonder how folks in the LGBTQ community lean re: the Dems announcing thus far.
Electorally, I wouldn't expect the LGBTQ population to have enough votes in swing states to move the needle. I might be wrong on that, though.
-
I am not voting in the Democratic primary, but I like Kamala Harris. I don't know enough about her, but I find her likeable and think she would be difficult for Trump to compete against. There is a huge amount of contrast, and I think that would play well. Trump would crush Bernie.
-
I am not voting in the Democratic primary, but I like Kamala Harris. I don't know enough about her, but I find her likeable and think she would be difficult for Trump to compete against. There is a huge amount of contrast, and I think that would play well. Trump would crush Bernie.
Quite a number of polls say otherwise. I think there is a group out there that really hates Bernie, but his ideas seem to be catching fire. You never used to hear so many people talk about reforming healthcare. The changes that will finally be implemented may not be the exact ones he is proposing, but they will certainly be in that direction.
Quite a lot of people do not see Trump as a good president. I think they want a change even more than when they voted him in. It will be interesting to see if there are lawsuits against him if he loses his presidential bid in 2020.
-
I think the polls also said Hillary would win. But, I might be wrong. I am not good at predicting these things, but I do like Kamala Harris the best of the bunch so far.
-
Old Bernie gives a quiz.
https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-medicare-all-quiz-1449567 (https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-medicare-all-quiz-1449567)
He is comparing Joe Biden to Donald Trump.
Bernie has said some very nasty things about Donald Trump.
https://www.axios.com/debate-night-democrats-trump-attacks-c07f8b1f-e710-48ec-b8d2-3a071d9aacc2.html (https://www.axios.com/debate-night-democrats-trump-attacks-c07f8b1f-e710-48ec-b8d2-3a071d9aacc2.html)
Is he (Trump) really a pathological liar and a racist? Or is he just a normal liar like many politicians?
Bernie has been the type to stick to the issues and this personal attack thing should be avoided by all of these candidates.
-
I think the polls also said Hillary would win.
If you thought the polls in 2016 were bad (they weren't that far off, people just didn't understand what the numbers meant and thought 60/40 meant it was going to be a blowout for Hillary instead of "in 6 of 10 elections, she'd probably win"), wait for the 2020 polls.
Four years of calling Trump voters every dirty name someone can think of is probably going to impact the willingness of people to answer poll questions honestly in swing states.
-
I will not talk to any pollster that calls me. I am not exactly a swing voter, but I live in a swing state.
-
The Latest Trump Poll. Will it be unbiased? An opportunity for unbiased honesty.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/landing/2020-trump-vs-dem-poll (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/landing/2020-trump-vs-dem-poll)
-
The Latest Trump Poll. Will it be unbiased? An opportunity for unbiased honesty.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/landing/2020-trump-vs-dem-poll (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/landing/2020-trump-vs-dem-poll)
LOL! You've looked at the questions, right?
-
If he literally ran, I'd vote for him. Show me a 12 minute mile and I'll become a Bernie Bro.
World Record in his age group is just over 6 minutes - https://www.usatf.org/statistics/records/view.asp?division=american&location=road&age=masters&ageGroup=75-79&sport=LDR
-
The Latest Trump Poll. Will it be unbiased? An opportunity for unbiased honesty.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/landing/2020-trump-vs-dem-poll (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/landing/2020-trump-vs-dem-poll)
LOL! You've looked at the questions, right?
One point from me to Trump - about taxes, though that stretches the meaning of "trust" quite a bit and does ignore effects of decisions.
-
Old Bernie was in a debate with half of the Democrats running last night.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/30/politics/who-won-democratic-debate/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/30/politics/who-won-democratic-debate/index.html)
Lots of talk.
-
This is why we will get 8 years of Trump.
agreed!
Yup. Guaranteed there are some ties to Russia-backed organizations like the Sparts in his background. Nobody has dumped oppo on him yet.
I think Bernie may be compromised, too.
-
If you thought the polls in 2016 were bad (they weren't that far off, people just didn't understand what the numbers meant and thought 60/40 meant it was going to be a blowout for Hillary instead of "in 6 of 10 elections, she'd probably win"), wait for the 2020 polls.
^ This. The polls were actually farther off in 2012, only they were off in the direction of the winner. In 2016 the were wrong in the direction of the loser, and the 2016 results were much closer, so it seemed to magnify the error.
-
They were right when Dewey defeated Truman.
Bernie did a long interview with Joe Rogan. Link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O-iLk1G_ng (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O-iLk1G_ng)
Long time to 2020. Maybe the eventual winner has not even decided to run yet. It could be YOU.
-
I admit I've never been a huge Bernie fan and the MSM always portrays him as some crazy loud far left guy, flailing his arms about yelling about god knows what.
I have to say that it was sooo refreshing to see Bernie in this type of long format interview on Rogan's podcast. Yang and Gabbard also went on Rogan and i enjoyed both of those podcasts as well. Bernie's already has 6 million views in 2 days. He came off far more rational in this type of format and i thoroughly enjoyed it. I may not agree with everything he says, but it is just nice to here stuff from the horses mouth when the interviewer isn't trying to twist their words or play to some agenda. I'd love to see a point in time where every presidential candidate does this type of long format interview on youtube.
-
I admit I've never been a huge Bernie fan and the MSM always portrays him as some crazy loud far left guy, flailing his arms about yelling about god knows what.
I have to say that it was sooo refreshing to see Bernie in this type of long format interview on Rogan's podcast. Yang and Gabbard also went on Rogan and i enjoyed both of those podcasts as well. Bernie's already has 6 million views in 2 days. He came off far more rational in this type of format and i thoroughly enjoyed it. I may not agree with everything he says, but it is just nice to here stuff from the horses mouth when the interviewer isn't trying to twist their words or play to some agenda. I'd love to see a point in time where every presidential candidate does this type of long format interview on youtube.
I also listened to that interview and came away impressed. I haven't heard much from Bernie since the 2016 primaries but I get why he attracts so much love. His cohesive message and the sincerity with which he delivers it is compelling, even if I find some of his specific policy proposals rather poorly thought out. I thought he also showed what a super sharp 77 year old sounds like, and makes both Trump and Biden look worse by comparison.
-
Bernie says to lock up Fossil Fuel Execs:
https://www.quora.com/Bernie-Sanders-said-Fossil-fuel-executives-should-be-criminally-prosecuted-for-the-destruction-they-have-knowingly-caused-What-is-your-view-on-this (https://www.quora.com/Bernie-Sanders-said-Fossil-fuel-executives-should-be-criminally-prosecuted-for-the-destruction-they-have-knowingly-caused-What-is-your-view-on-this)
Did old Bernie go too far this time? The right wing press is really chewing on this. Bernie has tough hide.
I like this guy. He is kind of like the only attack dog out there for some of these things. He definitely doesn't let business go on as usual.
And no - You shouldn't lock honest men up for running large organizations like oil and coal companies.
-
I don't believe that they should be locked up. They haven't broken any laws. The problem is that it's legal to cause wanton environmental destruction and damage. That needs to be changed.
Then we can lock up these 'honest men' running large corporations who knowingly destroy the world we live in to buy a few extra ivory back scratchers.
-
And no - You shouldn't lock honest men up for running large organizations like oil and coal companies.
I don't believe that they should be locked up. They haven't broken any laws.
It depends actually. Lying to investors is illegal and should be vigorously prosecuted because it undermines the whole legitimacy of the stock market. The question would be if they were being honest about the science of global warming and how it could impact the future of the company in their investor meetings.
-
This one sort of bugs me. Old Bernie used a conservative statistic to guesstimate the number of bankruptcies caused by medical bills in a year. The Washington Post wrote an article basically calling him a liar. According to this Rolling Stone article, their assertion is pure hocus pocus.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/bernie-sanders-medical-bankruptcy-washington-post-fact-check-878120/ (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/bernie-sanders-medical-bankruptcy-washington-post-fact-check-878120/)
It seems to be an example of smoke once again being blown over the real issue. People are being hurt because they can't pay their medical bills. Some are being financially ruined. Mr. Sanders wants to change this so that this doesn't happen. Seems like to nitpick over exact figures may be a waste of time.
It would make a lot of things easier if they had single payer. It would make it easier to be FI. It would make it easier to retire.
-
Age shouldn't be a huge factor, but it is a little concerning that Old Bernie, based on actuarial statistics, has a 23% of not completing his first term in office, if elected. Biden is 21% and Warren 8%. Trump, due to age has a 15% statistical chance of not completing his second term if elected. For these older candidates, VP selection is critical.
-
Age shouldn't be a huge factor, but it is a little concerning that Old Bernie, based on actuarial statistics, has a 23% of not completing his first term in office, if elected. Biden is 21% and Warren 8%. Trump, due to age has a 15% statistical chance of not completing his second term if elected. For these older candidates, VP selection is critical.
Actually that rate should be a lot lower for him (and the others you list). First of all he is not a poor lad that had to work in cancer inducing professions.
Second, as POTUS you are a lot more under scrutiny from doctors :D
Of yourse you could always say the stress is far worse than the benefits.
Anyway, a clear case for statistics don't tell you anything about the individual case ;)
-
Statistics are one of the best ways to lie and cheat. Bernie looks pretty sharp. Elizabeth Warren looks very sharp. Biden not so much. Trump looks bad for reasons other than his age.
It's not just them. It's the people they have around them. In voting for any of these people you are kind of voting for a philosophy.
-
Bernie has added health debt forgiveness to his long list of promised benefits.
https://beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/sen-bernie-sanders-teases-plan-to-cancel-81-billion-in-americans-medical-debt/2019/08/30/35701e54-cb95-11e9-a4f3-c081a126de70_story.html?noredirect=on (https://beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/sen-bernie-sanders-teases-plan-to-cancel-81-billion-in-americans-medical-debt/2019/08/30/35701e54-cb95-11e9-a4f3-c081a126de70_story.html?noredirect=on)
When I first heard this one, I thought he's really gone too far. Then I heard a news announcer put the bill in perspective. It is much less to pay for this debt than was spent to blow up those places in the Middle East. And, they are still over there. Medical debt has caused more than a little angst among folks in the US.
-
Looks like old Bernie had a heart attack.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/bernie-sanders-had-heart-attack-week-campaign-says-n1062736 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/bernie-sanders-had-heart-attack-week-campaign-says-n1062736)
Maybe he is too old for the presidency. Nobody else quite like him. He has changed the face of American politics. I think for the better in many cases.
-
Looks like old Bernie had a heart attack.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/bernie-sanders-had-heart-attack-week-campaign-says-n1062736 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/bernie-sanders-had-heart-attack-week-campaign-says-n1062736)
Maybe he is too old for the presidency. Nobody else quite like him. He has changed the face of American politics. I think for the better in many cases.
. I love Bernie but it's time to go. He did help bring about many new ideas that are possible now that we're crazy in the past.
-
The old guy was already kicking again yesterday
https://boingboing.net/2019/10/04/bernie-sanders-discharged-from.html
Of course that does not really say anything about the severity. But getting stents isn't exactly that big thing today anymore and getting released 2 days later is normal.
-
The issue is, how will he be doing over the next 4.5 years.
-
Yes. The presidency is not a job where there is a lot of down time (trump notwithstanding).
-
[... many new ideas that are possible now that we're crazy...
Freudian apostrophe slip? :-)
-
Looks like he is healed up. He had a big rally in New York City.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/19/bernie-sanders-ocasio-cortez-endorsement-rally-051491 (https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/19/bernie-sanders-ocasio-cortez-endorsement-rally-051491)
-
Old Bernie leads in NH poll.
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/bernie-sanders-reclaims-leads-in-new-hampshire-primary-in-latest-poll-1.8057577 (https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/bernie-sanders-reclaims-leads-in-new-hampshire-primary-in-latest-poll-1.8057577)
-
Old Bernie won the NH primary. Old Bernie leads in National polls.
It may be him up against a billionaire that is going all out to buy an election. Will people go with principled Bernie or sell out to the highest bidder?
-
He wants to abolish medical debt? Sucks for those who paid for (either directly or via their employer) health insurance, huh.
He wants to abolish student debt? Sucks for those who earned scholarships or paid back their debt from their graduate jobs.
Why choose medical and student debt? Why not abolish mortgage debt? I'd love to have the debts waived on my investment property. That way I could buy more property. Hopefully that debt could be waived too.
-
One does not choose when they get sick. There does seem to be a certain fairness about this one. Fate has dealt the sick one a bad blow already. Mankind can do one better than fate and not add to the bad luck by adding debt.
Student debt? Well - As a society we should train our young for the needs of the future. Here, there could be bad choices and I consider that perhaps all debt should not be cancelled across the board. I was in a hotel last year and the clerk behind the counter was telling me of the high college debt incurred in working on his philosophy degree before he dropped out. I have the pragmatic opinion that maybe Society doesn't need very many philosophy degrees and maybe there is no value to Society to pay for some degrees. I think there should be some conditions before just buying off these college debts.
Mortgage debt - The purchase of a home is an individual choice. It's not like being sick and I don't see any value to society in buying off this debt. It is not an efficient use of precious tax dollars.
-
It's all pretty immaterial to argue about these things b/c none of Bernie's policies are gonna pass if he becomes president, regardless of whether people support them or not.
-
I was in a hotel last year and the clerk behind the counter was telling me of the high college debt incurred in working on his philosophy degree before he dropped out. I have the pragmatic opinion that maybe Society doesn't need very many philosophy degrees
I actually think we have way way not enough philosophy degrees. Just look at how many people can't think a bit!
We certainly need less investment banker degrees or advertisement degrees, but philosophy? No.
-
I was in a hotel last year and the clerk behind the counter was telling me of the high college debt incurred in working on his philosophy degree before he dropped out. I have the pragmatic opinion that maybe Society doesn't need very many philosophy degrees
I actually think we have way way not enough philosophy degrees. Just look at how many people can't think a bit!
To me that sounds like an argument for more teaching of reasoning and critical thinking skills at both the secondary level (high school) and at the college level (college-wide requirements) rather than an argument for more philosophy majors.
Right now philosophy majors are one out of every two hundred and fifty new college graduates. Even if they grew to one in one hundred or one in fifty I don't think this would produce a noticeable change in the thinking/reasoning ability of the average college graduate.
And keep in mind that the majority of americans don't have/won't get a college degree, regardless of major.
-
Why not abolish mortgage debt? I'd love to have the debts waived on my investment property. That way I could buy more property. Hopefully that debt could be waived too.
Mortgage debt has been subject to significant government subsides for ages in the US, hasn't it? I seem to remember reading something about mortgage deductions . . .
-
Why not abolish mortgage debt? I'd love to have the debts waived on my investment property. That way I could buy more property. Hopefully that debt could be waived too.
Mortgage debt has been subject to significant government subsides for ages in the US, hasn't it? I seem to remember reading something about mortgage deductions . . .
Depends on your definition of "significant".
There's also a difference between eliminating "debt" vs. (in some situations) allowing a tax deduction (not credit) for the interest on that debt.
We currently allow some people to take deductions for interest on both student loans and mortgages.
-
Ah. I didn't know that student loans were tax deductible.
-
It's all pretty immaterial to argue about these things b/c none of Bernie's policies are gonna pass if he becomes president, regardless of whether people support them or not.
That's most likely true. However, if he even gets things pushed in some of these directions, it may be considered a victory. For example, if he gets some sort of single payer tacked on to Obamacare, that may be considered a victory. If Trump and company win again, that law may be gone.
Some of the other candidates are ready to compromise right out of the gate. The opposition will roll over them. The plutocrats will have sport with them. Bernie, on the other hand, will make life miserable for them. I figure it will end up that they will throw him a bone or two to chew on to shut him up for a while. Once people see that things can get accomplished, they will beg for more bones and some good things will be done.
-
I think Bernie would get absolutely crushed. The US is not that far left, especially in the swing states.
-
I think Bernie would get absolutely crushed. The US is not that far left, especially in the swing states.
I think Trump thinks this, too.
-
It's all pretty immaterial to argue about these things b/c none of Bernie's policies are gonna pass if he becomes president, regardless of whether people support them or not.
That's most likely true. However, if he even gets things pushed in some of these directions, it may be considered a victory. For example, if he gets some sort of single payer tacked on to Obamacare, that may be considered a victory. If Trump and company win again, that law may be gone.
Some of the other candidates are ready to compromise right out of the gate. The opposition will roll over them. The plutocrats will have sport with them. Bernie, on the other hand, will make life miserable for them. I figure it will end up that they will throw him a bone or two to chew on to shut him up for a while. Once people see that things can get accomplished, they will beg for more bones and some good things will be done.
This is possible. However, he would have to get elected first. Bernie has the best shot of winning (IMO) of any the further left candidates; however, I doubt ANY far left (by American standards) candidate can win, even against Trump (barring some sort of economic meltdown in the next 6 months, which looks unlikely).
I'd have to see very strong head-to-head polling against Trump in Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Colorado, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan to begin to believe he could win. I hope I'm wrong b/c the Dems seem to be heading that way....if anyone HAS seen any such polls among likely voters, I'd love to be reassured.
-
Looks like Bernie doesn't do so good against Trump in the Southern states.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/ (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/)
I kind of have an idea why.
-
It's all pretty immaterial to argue about these things b/c none of Bernie's policies are gonna pass if he becomes president, regardless of whether people support them or not.
That's most likely true. However, if he even gets things pushed in some of these directions, it may be considered a victory. For example, if he gets some sort of single payer tacked on to Obamacare, that may be considered a victory. If Trump and company win again, that law may be gone.
Some of the other candidates are ready to compromise right out of the gate. The opposition will roll over them. The plutocrats will have sport with them. Bernie, on the other hand, will make life miserable for them. I figure it will end up that they will throw him a bone or two to chew on to shut him up for a while. Once people see that things can get accomplished, they will beg for more bones and some good things will be done.
This is possible. However, he would have to get elected first. Bernie has the best shot of winning (IMO) of any the further left candidates; however, I doubt ANY far left (by American standards) candidate can win, even against Trump (barring some sort of economic meltdown in the next 6 months, which looks unlikely).
I'd have to see very strong head-to-head polling against Trump in Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Colorado, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan to begin to believe he could win. I hope I'm wrong b/c the Dems seem to be heading that way....if anyone HAS seen any such polls among likely voters, I'd love to be reassured.
I think "far left" is the wrong way to categorize Sanders. The new domain over which battles will be fought will be on the populist versus internationalist axis. If Democrats accept that Trump has stumbled upon some especially compelling facet of the electorate's psyche then they will do best with a candidate like Sanders. That's why I agree that for those who believe the removal of Trump from office is the highest objective, Sanders is your man. For those thinking the system will reset itself after the departure of Trump in 2020 or 2024, go with {Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Biden, The Klob} (the best of these options is Buttigieg, imho, followed by The Klob but it's hard to see the Dems green-lighting a Midwesterner). For those who really want to double-down, go with Hillary for 2020 amidst the joys of a brokered convention. I normally don't like sequels but would pay a fortune to see Round 2 in HC vs Trump debates.
In considering all this, this post-mortem (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm5xxlajTW0) of the 2016 election is essential (Steve Bannon warning! But if you can't admit he was right about some things after a 3 year cool-down period, then your TDS might be terminal).
Speaking of head-to-head polls, I thought fivethrityeight argued that such polls are essentially worthless this early.
-
I agree polls can't be taken seriously at this point. Let me amend to: If Sanders wins the nomination, I would need to see some pretty robust polling at that point in the process to be convinced.
I hope you are correct that Bernie can win over swing state voters, if he wins the nom. I just think the socialist label is going to scare them, along with the Dems' generally more pro-immigrant platform, and the open threat to take away the health insurance that people already have and give 'free' things to people (it doesn't matter that those policy promises will not happen; it will still scare them). I'm not at all sure that Sander's less internationalist, more protectionist economic messaging will overcome those things. I keep thinking of my father, who is a conservative leaning independent in one of the states that crucially swung for Trump. He voted for Trump (b/c for random reasons that he couldn't articulate he just hated Hillary, despite voting for her husband and also for Gore back in the day). He's regretted his vote for Trump since about a month after the inauguration and bitches to me CONSTANTLY about how much he wants Trump removed from office and what a threat he is.
BUT I think it very unlikely he will vote for any of the further left candidates the Dems are floating. And he absolutely won't vote third party b/c he views it as a wasted vote. I suspect he'd vote for Klobucharr or Gabbard or any boring Dem centrist (though probably not Buttigieg b/c he's old and kind of homophobic). I'm pretty sure he'd vote for Bloomberg in a hot second. I am very skeptical that he'd vote for Bernie or Warren. In fact, I suspect he might vote for Trump again (miserably) rather than vote for either of them.
But who knows, it's one data point. I keep getting visions of a Goldwater style blowout if Sanders were to go up against Trump, but the vast majority of the country's votes are likely locked in anyway already, so that's probably not likely.
Problem is, I'm a cynical bitch who expects nothing good from humanity, so it colors all my expectations. Y'all keep on believing, and I'll vote for whomever the Dems put up, even though I'm totally un-enthused about any of them.
-
I think Sanders will get wedged. His socialist tendencies will be anathema both to the traditional conservative base and also to a significant portion of rich progressives who traditionally vote Democrat. And it's not just that he's for redistribution. He's also for a degree of protectionism, which is another thing that separates him from the Democratic mainstream.
I wouldn't vote for Sanders simply because I don't believe in that large a degree of redistribution, nor do I believe in protectionism. I'd rather see a successful migrant in the country, even if it comes at the cost of a local job.
-
I agree polls can't be taken seriously at this point. Let me amend to: If Sanders wins the nomination, I would need to see some pretty robust polling at that point in the process to be convinced.
I hope you are correct that Bernie can win over swing state voters, if he wins the nom. I just think the socialist label is going to scare them, along with the Dems' generally more pro-immigrant platform, and the open threat to take away the health insurance that people already have and give 'free' things to people (it doesn't matter that those policy promises will not happen; it will still scare them). I'm not at all sure that Sander's less internationalist, more protectionist economic messaging will overcome those things. I keep thinking of my father, who is a conservative leaning independent in one of the states that crucially swung for Trump. He voted for Trump (b/c for random reasons that he couldn't articulate he just hated Hillary, despite voting for her husband and also for Gore back in the day). He's regretted his vote for Trump since about a month after the inauguration and bitches to me CONSTANTLY about how much he wants Trump removed from office and what a threat he is.
BUT I think it very unlikely he will vote for any of the further left candidates the Dems are floating. And he absolutely won't vote third party b/c he views it as a wasted vote. I suspect he'd vote for Klobucharr or Gabbard or any boring Dem centrist (though probably not Buttigieg b/c he's old and kind of homophobic). I'm pretty sure he'd vote for Bloomberg in a hot second. I am very skeptical that he'd vote for Bernie or Warren. In fact, I suspect he might vote for Trump again (miserably) rather than vote for either of them.
But who knows, it's one data point. I keep getting visions of a Goldwater style blowout if Sanders were to go up against Trump, but the vast majority of the country's votes are likely locked in anyway already, so that's probably not likely.
Problem is, I'm a cynical bitch who expects nothing good from humanity, so it colors all my expectations. Y'all keep on believing, and I'll vote for whomever the Dems put up, even though I'm totally un-enthused about any of them.
This is why I think Gabbard could actually be a very good general campaign candidate even though she is not viable in the primaries. She can represent the extreme non-interventionist geopolitical elements of populism without being traced to a 60 year history of full-throated support of socialism. Imagining that Sanders could pivot much in the general election is not an easy thing. Here is where I would put odds on head-to-head matches vs Trump:
Gabbard: 45%
Sanders: 40%
Buttigieg: 30%
The Klob: 25%
Bloomberg: 20%
Biden: 15%
The question isn't so much about the habitual voter but the marginal one. What will make someone passionate about voting? I'm sure Trump is worried about being called a lying dog-faced pony solider!
-
It was pointed out to me today that Pete Buttigieg could lose this election and run for president 10 more times and he would still be younger than Bernie is today.
Interesting bit of perspective.
-
I think Bernie would get absolutely crushed. The US is not that far left, especially in the swing states.
I heard that some unionists in Nevada (and elsewhere)don't want to give up their employer-provided health insurance which is not a plus for Bernie.
-
It was pointed out to me today that Pete Buttigieg could lose this election and run for president 10 more times and he would still be younger than Bernie is today.
Interesting bit of perspective.
It certainly does let you know how much less experienced he is than old Bernie. Both stated out a Mayors.
-
“I would expect that sort of thing at a Trump rally.” (https://nypost.com/2020/02/17/brawl-breaks-out-at-bernie-sanders-rally-over-black-guns-matter-shirt/)
This fits perfectly with how I'm modelling this election. Very bullish sign for Sanders--and also note the topless protesters throwing fake blood around in NV the other day. Still, it's not as impressive as this (https://youtu.be/Kd6pVAb_tHs?t=666) but I can also understand why someone might still vote for Joe, who reassuringly knows the foreign policy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPetDJi4Gd0) [sic].
-
Money can't buy happiness,........but maybe it can buy you the Presidency.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/bloomberg-surpasses-400m-in-ad-spending-for-2020-race (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/bloomberg-surpasses-400m-in-ad-spending-for-2020-race)
How much of that did he get from his tax cut?
-
I wonder how much of it is his spending versus Sleepy Joe failing to inspire anyone and voters looking for an alternative leathery centrist. I will admit there is a meta-ironic appeal to the Bloomberg meme machine (https://www.businessinsider.com/mike-bloomberg-campaign-memes-paid-instagram-influencers-2020-2) in its self-awareness of its own cynicism--as if that realization absolves the underlying strategy. I'm not convinced Bloomberg has any staying-power in the polls, but in any case, I'm going to go back to my side-hustle of making Instagram Mike memes for $15/hr.
In other news, I wonder if this new Bernie ad (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tER-pycaOXc) is bad fact-checking or purposefully a smear with respect to this (https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/) incident. Trump is a quagmire of problematic quotes that could have been used with more veracity in place of that line but perhaps none slotted so well into the "first Jewish president" theme. Welcome to identity politics, Bernie.
-
Hillary Clinton said nobody likes Bernie. Well,...... It turns out the Russians like him!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvtLcpeoU8A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvtLcpeoU8A)
Maybe, they figure he'll usher in a period of peace and cooperation. Bernie would be no fun as a president.
-
Hillary Clinton said nobody likes Bernie. Well,...... It turns out the Russians like him!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvtLcpeoU8A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvtLcpeoU8A)
Maybe, they figure he'll usher in a period of peace and cooperation. Bernie would be no fun as a president.
So is this suggesting that as a candidate, you don't choose Russia, Russia chooses you?
-
Russians helping Bernie in the news today. Makes sense, Bernie will loose and Trump gets in again.
-
Hillary Clinton said nobody likes Bernie. Well,...... It turns out the Russians like him!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvtLcpeoU8A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvtLcpeoU8A)
Maybe, they figure he'll usher in a period of peace and cooperation. Bernie would be no fun as a president.
So is this suggesting that as a candidate, you don't choose Russia, Russia chooses you?
Why would he choose Russia? Russians don't vote here and they already have national health care.
-
Weird how when the Russians help a Democrat there's denouncement of the practice . . . but when they help a Republican there are secret meetings, trips to Russia, denial the the help is going on, admission that the help is going on but denial that it's significant, admission that the help is going on but claims that there's nothing wrong with it . . .
Another example of how both parties are exactly the same I guess.
-
Weird how when the Russians help a Democrat there's denouncement of the practice . . . but when they help a Republican there are secret meetings, trips to Russia, denial the the help is going on, admission that the help is going on but denial that it's significant, admission that the help is going on but claims that there's nothing wrong with it . . .
Another example of how both parties are exactly the same I guess.
Well - I don't remember Donald ranting against Mr. Putin. So the response to this stuff hasn't been the same.
https://www.wired.com/story/bernie-sanders-russia-chaos-2020-election/ (https://www.wired.com/story/bernie-sanders-russia-chaos-2020-election/)
The above article says what they really want is a bit of chaos. I'm thinkin' it worked when they helped get the current president elected.
Here's a paragraph from the lined article.
"Sanders did vote against the Magnitsky Act in 2012, a notorious Putin bugaboo, which could arguably make him a more palatable candidate to the Kremlin. But the distinction between Russia’s support for Trump and Sanders then, as now, is that Russia wanted only Trump to win. Promoting Sanders was simply another means to that end, driving a wedge between two already fraught factions of the Democratic Party."
The chaos thing makes sense. Those folks don't like the US of A. They are smart folks. They are good with dirty tricks.
I wonder if they mess with other country's politics. Canada, maybe, eh?
-
Putin does not want Sanders. But he is smart. So if he announces he does, he can damage him, help Trump and that all for not even doing anything.
And, just to say it again, the USA is the very last country that should say something about foreign interference.
-
Looks like old Bernie is winning in Nevada. Was it Putin's help that did it? I don't watch much TV but I get the idea that the talking heads aren't altogether pleased.
-
Trump will wipe the floor with Bernie. He is the weakest nominee. That is why the Russians want him nominated. It will become a culture war campaign and Bernie will lose in a landslide.
-
Russians helping Bernie in the news today. Makes sense, Bernie will loose and Trump gets in again.
Another possibility is that Sanders is an even bigger dove than Trump and the Russians know Sanders won't respond if they make moves in the old Eastern block states.
-
Putin does not want Sanders. But he is smart. So if he announces he does, he can damage him, help Trump and that all for not even doing anything.
And, just to say it again, the USA is the very last country that should say something about foreign interference.
I think Putin wants Sanders as the nominee because he knows it will cause more chaos, and because he strongly suspects Trump will beat Sanders in the general.
Looks like Putin may get his wish.
-
Russians helping Bernie in the news today. Makes sense, Bernie will loose and Trump gets in again.
Another possibility is that Sanders is an even bigger dove than Trump and the Russians know Sanders won't respond if they make moves in the old Eastern block states.
Psh. Trump will let Putin do whatever he wants in the Eastern bloc states.
-
Psh. Trump will let Putin do whatever he wants in the Eastern bloc states.
But will Sanders? My guess is yes. Sanders and Trump are probably the #1 and #2 picks (not sure who is #1) for the Russians in this election.
-
Seems like the Russians still have a lot of troubles at home to deal with. Russia is incredibly ethnically diverse. There is long term generational friction between these different groups of people. However, an invasion could be used as a diversion to unify those groups of people.
-
Psh. Trump will let Putin do whatever he wants in the Eastern bloc states.
But will Sanders? My guess is yes. Sanders and Trump are probably the #1 and #2 picks (not sure who is #1) for the Russians in this election.
As a pacifist, it is possible. But a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Trump is already a sure thing useful idiot.
-
Looks like the momentum is no longer with Bernie Sanders. He got it handed to him in South Carolina by Joe Biden.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/us/politics/sc-primary-biden.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/us/politics/sc-primary-biden.html)
Maybe, the press will now turn their attention to Joe Biden. Can he beat Donald Trump? Is he the next hope for the Democrats?
It was older voters that made the difference. These are the people that vote the most of any Demographic. It is not just true in SOuth Carolina. It may be a Biden Trump battle this Fall.
Who would Biden choose as a running mate? Hillary?
-
Looks like the momentum is no longer with Bernie Sanders. He got it handed to him in South Carolina by Joe Biden.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/us/politics/sc-primary-biden.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/us/politics/sc-primary-biden.html)
Maybe, the press will now turn their attention to Joe Biden. Can he beat Donald Trump? Is he the next hope for the Democrats?
It was older voters that made the difference. These are the people that vote the most of any Demographic. It is not just true in SOuth Carolina. It may be a Biden Trump battle this Fall.
Who would Biden choose as a running mate? Hillary?
Almost certainly not. He'll choose someone young, more populist and liberal, and likely a woman or minority. Think Stacey Abrams etc.
-
There are so many videos of Biden inappropriately touching women out there. I dont know how he could be taken seriously as the Democrat Nominee.
-
Looks like the momentum is no longer with Bernie Sanders. He got it handed to him in South Carolina by Joe Biden.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/us/politics/sc-primary-biden.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/us/politics/sc-primary-biden.html)
Maybe, the press will now turn their attention to Joe Biden. Can he beat Donald Trump? Is he the next hope for the Democrats?
It was older voters that made the difference. These are the people that vote the most of any Demographic. It is not just true in SOuth Carolina. It may be a Biden Trump battle this Fall.
Who would Biden choose as a running mate? Hillary?
Almost certainly not. He'll choose someone young, more populist and liberal, and likely a woman or minority. Think Stacey Abrams etc.
What about Kamala or Klob?
-
Looks like the momentum is no longer with Bernie Sanders. He got it handed to him in South Carolina by Joe Biden.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/us/politics/sc-primary-biden.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/us/politics/sc-primary-biden.html)
Maybe, the press will now turn their attention to Joe Biden. Can he beat Donald Trump? Is he the next hope for the Democrats?
It was older voters that made the difference. These are the people that vote the most of any Demographic. It is not just true in SOuth Carolina. It may be a Biden Trump battle this Fall.
Who would Biden choose as a running mate? Hillary?
It has been expected from the beginning that Biden would dominate in SC. It would have been more of a statement of the end of Biden if he didn't win big in SC, versus his win meaning much about the rest of the race. Sanders is still likely to capture the most delegates on super Tuesday.
-
Who would Biden choose as a running mate? Hillary?
Almost certainly not. He'll choose someone young, more populist and liberal, and likely a woman or minority. Think Stacey Abrams etc.
What about Kamala or Klob?
I hope not Klobuchar. She's gone from a senator I respect to someone I'd like far away from the nuclear launch codes over the course of the debates I watched before giving up.
Harris would be fine.
However, I'd feel more confident in guessing Stacey Abrams (a woman, black, and from an emerging swing state (GA). Likely to help the ticket in NC and FL) will be the vice presidential nominee than I would be in guessing who will be in the presidential nominee.
-
Looks like the momentum is no longer with Bernie Sanders. He got it handed to him in South Carolina by Joe Biden.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/us/politics/sc-primary-biden.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/us/politics/sc-primary-biden.html)
Maybe, the press will now turn their attention to Joe Biden. Can he beat Donald Trump? Is he the next hope for the Democrats?
It was older voters that made the difference. These are the people that vote the most of any Demographic. It is not just true in SOuth Carolina. It may be a Biden Trump battle this Fall.
Who would Biden choose as a running mate? Hillary?
Almost certainly not. He'll choose someone young, more populist and liberal, and likely a woman or minority. Think Stacey Abrams etc.
What about Kamala or Klob?
I like Klob, but it's anyone's guess.
-
Looks like the momentum is no longer with Bernie Sanders. He got it handed to him in South Carolina by Joe Biden.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/us/politics/sc-primary-biden.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/us/politics/sc-primary-biden.html)
Maybe, the press will now turn their attention to Joe Biden. Can he beat Donald Trump? Is he the next hope for the Democrats?
It was older voters that made the difference. These are the people that vote the most of any Demographic. It is not just true in SOuth Carolina. It may be a Biden Trump battle this Fall.
Who would Biden choose as a running mate? Hillary?
Almost certainly not. He'll choose someone young, more populist and liberal, and likely a woman or minority. Think Stacey Abrams etc.
What about Kamala or Klob?
Biden did drop Kamala’s name a few days ago. I think he would likely choose her.
-
Looks like the momentum is no longer with Bernie Sanders. He got it handed to him in South Carolina by Joe Biden.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/us/politics/sc-primary-biden.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/us/politics/sc-primary-biden.html)
Maybe, the press will now turn their attention to Joe Biden. Can he beat Donald Trump? Is he the next hope for the Democrats?
It was older voters that made the difference. These are the people that vote the most of any Demographic. It is not just true in SOuth Carolina. It may be a Biden Trump battle this Fall.
Who would Biden choose as a running mate? Hillary?
Almost certainly not. He'll choose someone young, more populist and liberal, and likely a woman or minority. Think Stacey Abrams etc.
What about Kamala or Klob?
Biden did drop Kamala’s name a few days ago. I think he would likely choose her.
He would get a two for one. She's a woman and she is black. She is also a centrist Democrat with a background in law and order.
She was a favorite until Tulsi Gabbard kind of ripped her apart.
-
Looks like the momentum is no longer with Bernie Sanders. He got it handed to him in South Carolina by Joe Biden.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/us/politics/sc-primary-biden.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/us/politics/sc-primary-biden.html)
Maybe, the press will now turn their attention to Joe Biden. Can he beat Donald Trump? Is he the next hope for the Democrats?
It was older voters that made the difference. These are the people that vote the most of any Demographic. It is not just true in SOuth Carolina. It may be a Biden Trump battle this Fall.
Who would Biden choose as a running mate? Hillary?
Almost certainly not. He'll choose someone young, more populist and liberal, and likely a woman or minority. Think Stacey Abrams etc.
What about Kamala or Klob?
Will Kamala be able to walk back her criticisms of Biden, early on, for Biden's support (or maybe inaction) wrt segregation? Her "that little girl was me" statement directed towards Biden was pretty memorable.
-
General observation:
It is intersting how much the US elections - and I explicitly include you here now - are concentrating on exclusion.
"He did X so he could never be the candidate!" sort of thing.
Have you ever wondered why?
Have you ever thought about how much that is used (from "friend" and foe equally) to narrow the field? (And you can find some "can't be!" about everyone if you dig deep enough.)
Have you ever thought about how important that stuff is in light of where the decisions are really made?
Granted, the US president has quite some power. But he still does not rule alone (see Trump impeachment).
Remember Obama and single payer health care? Why did it not happen?
The answer is (according to Obamas own words): It would mean 3 million people in the insurance industry losing their job.
-
Granted, the US president has quite some power. But he still does not rule alone (see Trump impeachment).
Remember Obama and single payer health care? Why did it not happen?
The answer is (according to Obamas own words): It would mean 3 million people in the insurance industry losing their job.
But a public option very nearly did pass, which would have also (IMO) meant the death of the private medical insurance industry, just in a slower and more drawn-out fashion.
If your point here is that single-payer is politically difficult because of those 3 million job cuts, then I agree (but a strong economy with close to 0% unemployment like the one we have now is the best possible time to make that transition, so that those people can find work somewhere else).
If your point is that it should not be done because of those 3 million jobs, then I disagree. The free market can and should be steered in directions that are actually beneficial to society. The medical insurance industry is not only not-beneficial, it is actively harmful and we should do better.
-
Granted, the US president has quite some power. But he still does not rule alone (see Trump impeachment).
Remember Obama and single payer health care? Why did it not happen?
The answer is (according to Obamas own words): It would mean 3 million people in the insurance industry losing their job.
But a public option very nearly did pass, which would have also (IMO) meant the death of the private medical insurance industry, just in a slower and more drawn-out fashion.
If your point here is that single-payer is politically difficult because of those 3 million job cuts, then I agree (but a strong economy with close to 0% unemployment like the one we have now is the best possible time to make that transition, so that those people can find work somewhere else).
If your point is that it should not be done because of those 3 million jobs, then I disagree. The free market can and should be steered in directions that are actually beneficial to society. The medical insurance industry is not only not-beneficial, it is actively harmful and we should do better.
Only 3 million. Seems like a lot less than the job losses in manufacturing that have occurred due to American businessman fleeing the nation for those in countries with less expensive labor. If our businesses were freed from having to pay for health insurance, they should be more competitive. I think there is a chance that we get 3 million jobs back due to there being a more competitive stance.
https://www.autonews.com/automakers-suppliers/automakers-aim-curb-health-care-costs (https://www.autonews.com/automakers-suppliers/automakers-aim-curb-health-care-costs)
From the old article linked above.
"Ford Motor Co.'s annual cost to provide health care to its hourly workers and their dependents will surpass $1 billion next year, according to a source familiar with the situation. Costs at General Motors and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles are increasing to similar figures.
-
If your point here is that single-payer is politically difficult because of those 3 million job cuts, then I agree (but a strong economy with close to 0% unemployment like the one we have now is the best possible time to make that transition, so that those people can find work somewhere else).
That one. Every politician is obsessed with jobs. Even Trump!
And that is why I don't think it will work easily even in the best of economic times.
-
Bernie needs to drop out now if he really cares about Democrats winning the election. But he won't since he isn't a Democrat.
-
Bernie needs to drop out now if he really cares about Democrats winning the election. But he won't since he isn't a Democrat.
Why? Many polls show him beating Donald Trump. Joe Biden has not been too impressive with his rhetoric.
If he obtains many delegates, this gives him bargaining power with the establishment Democrats to push the party towards some of the more progressive ideas.
- Health Care for All
- A livable minimum wage
- Equity in the taxation system (Make the rich pay their "fair share.")
- End to endless foreign wars
- Address global warming
Otherwise, the Democrats will run on just beating Trump because he is a bad president. They will not be steadfastly for an agenda the improves the general welfare.
-
We're getting 4 more years of the Donald, the DNC is a joke since Obama left office.
-
If he [Sanders] obtains many delegates, this gives him bargaining power with the establishment Democrats to push the party towards some of the more progressive ideas.
- Health Care for All
- A livable minimum wage
- Equity in the taxation system (Make the rich pay their "fair share.")
- End to endless foreign wars
- Address global warming
Otherwise, the Democrats will run on just beating Trump because he is a bad president. They will not be steadfastly for an agenda the improves the general welfare.
The problem I have with this argument is that in 2016 Sanders obtained a lot of delegates but did not win the nomination. The democratic nominee still ran on just beating Trump because he would be a bad president.
Why should we think Sanders getting a lot of delegates, but not winning the nomination, would produce a different outcome in 2020 than it did last time?
-
Bernie needs to drop out now if he really cares about Democrats winning the election. But he won't since he isn't a Democrat.
Why? Many polls show him beating Donald Trump. Joe Biden has not been too impressive with his rhetoric.
If he obtains many delegates, this gives him bargaining power with the establishment Democrats to push the party towards some of the more progressive ideas.
Oh, all of Bernie's big ideas that are part of a revolution........ that will never happen after the democrats lose a bunch of down-ballot races with Bernie at the top of the ticket and candidates that don't support most of Bernie's agenda.
It's ironic. People see Bernie as wanting to make big progressive changes, yet in reality, the Bern would likely accomplish less than Biden.
-
Well - Let's hope Biden accomplishes a lot because a lot is needed. There are worse choices than Biden.